Do you think Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are royal, or royalty?

[Onlyonekenobe]

"Being royal": I wonder what that means.

A person can marry in and become uber-royal (Prince Philip).

A royal-born can marry out and remain royal (Charlotte Casiraghi, Eugenie/Zara/Peter etc).

Is Mike Tindall royal? If so, why? If not, how royal is Meghan Markle (asking about her specifically given how she's pushing Meghan Sussex now)? Is Harry royal after his disloyalty to and disdain for the wearers of the crown and the nation's subjects (reverse-treason?!)?

Personally I don't think Mike Tindall or Meghan Markle are royal: they're married to members of the royal family, can become divorced and would then be neither members of the family nor royal. Had she lived, I think Diana wouldn't be deemed royal today, notwithstanding being the future kings' mother and grandmother.

Just pondering. I think royalty is a matter of royal acts and service to subjects, rather than a matter of fact. I don't think the Duke or Windsor was royal after abdication (certainly not his wife).

No I don’t see Meghan as ‘royal’ but she’s not really done anything ‘royal’
I’m sure if they had remained working royals I’d think differently.

Interesting question.

Thinking about it I feel there is a status difference between being a member of the royal family, ie born or married into the family and being a Senior Working Royal.

Being born or marrying into the family makes you royal, small 'r', carrying out duties on behalf of the King makes you royal, capital 'R'.

Neither Royal or royal make an individual better than any other human being but there is social and political status in being Royal. The latter come with duties and responsibilities the former doesn't have.

Harry and Meghan to me are royal but expect to be treated as Royal and therein lies the root of all their problems.

MM had a royal position by marrying in but is nothing now given she so publicly repudiated her role and now trades on an empty title to flog jam and other overpriced crap.
Harry was a royal prince by birth but given his obvious disdain for the royal family and, with his wife, his attempt to ruin them he is not royal but an ex-royal.
You can’t have your cake and eat it and then want to make trifle of it too.

No. I don’t see them as Royalty and I’d be accepting of Harry losing his titles. You’re either part of it, or you’re not. It’s as simple as that.

Interesting.

So if you can become royal (or Royal) by marrying in, does that mean you stop being royal (and, necessarily Royal) if you divorce? Peter Phillips's first wife (American lady, Autumn?) was royal and now isn't royal? Hmmm. I don't think I ever saw her as royal. I didn't - don't! - even know who she is.

I also don't see the likes of that odious Princess Michael as royal or Royal, even though she represents the RF on occasion and lives at KP. She's just too far from the crown. Maybe aristocratic, and in her case married-in aristocratic, much the same as the Gilded Age's rich American heiresses were.

Some of the European monarchies have a distinction between the 'royal family' and the 'Royal House', but Britain doesn't. The Royal House usually just includes the monarch and their immediate family. In Sweden, for example, it includes the King and Queen and their 3 children. The two children of Crown Princess Victoria are also included, but not the children of her two younger siblings, even though they hold the titles of Prince and Princess. The spouses of both Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Carl Philip are also included, but interestingly, not the husband of Princess Madeleine, who turned down the offer of royal titles and Swedish citizenship.

https://www.kungahuset.se/english

I think if Britain had such a distinction, it would be easier to say who is officially 'royal' and who just happens to be related to the monarch. Maybe having the HRH styling is relevant? Theoretically Harry and Meghan still hold it but they 'agreed' not to use it. Without that, however, I would say they are not officially royal. Meghan isn't even a British citizen.

Prince Philip was royal before he 'married in'.

I consider it to be royal by birth/blood...and if you marry in, you're royal if you're a working royal.

I don't believe either of them have been 'annointed by God'.... Harry is a Prince by birth but what does that really mean? He is no better than any of us. The whole concept of a monarchy is all smoke and mirrors.

I would respect them both so much more if they hadn't saddled their children with titles.

Prince Philip was born royal.

Harry is still royal.

Meghan only did 2 years before ditching and so can’t see her as royal.

Archie and Lilibet are royal in tile only

Was about to say that.

PH is 'Royal'. as in born into the Royal family.

MM married in.

Their children will have 'royal blood'.

But it's all a nonsense and originally based on whose ancestors were the most brutal, bloody and lucky on the battlefield in times of yore.

Yes, you stop being royal if you divorce. I don't like Princess Michael either but a few decades ago she was a very visible, and far more senior, member of the family so is definitely royal.

I liked what was written about being royal and a member of the Royal House. That's a helpful distinction too.

I'm kind of thinking aloud as I'm typing as I haven't really thought about it much. Having said that, I do believe that a fundamental principal of royalty is that royal or Royal, the rules must include everyone rather than letting us pick and choose based on who we approve of.

I think they need to restrict the HRH along the lines of Denmark (?) in the next generation. Or make it only for senior working royals?

The thing is 'working royal' is just a temporary position. Did Prince Philip cease to be 'royal' when he retired from official duties? Were Kate and William not 'royal' for the first few years of their marriage before they took up royal duties?

I think having a HRH is probably a better way to define it. Speaking of which, I really think Charles should issue a Letter Patent limiting royal titles and HRH styling only to direct line grandchildren. Eugenie and Beatrice look a bit silly with full HRH Princess titles for example. It should have been done before Archie and Lili were born but that wasn't really the Queen's way of doing things.

As I said above, being a 'working royal' is just a temporary role so I don't think titles and styles can really be based on that.

I agree with restricting titles and HRH. I think Britain is the only European monarchy where non direct line grandchildren have it. Prince Joachim's children never had HRH even when they had Prince and Princess titles. They were just 'Highness' but not 'Royal Highness'! The Swedish grandchildren do still have royal titles but are also 'just' Highnesses.

I think (just personally, I'm not saying it's a rule) that you either need to be born royal, or be a working royal to be considered "royal". So I'd include the Duchess of Edinburgh, but not Mike Tindall, or Autumn Phillips.

To be clear, I totally agree with this all being nonsense. I'm interested in the balance of power between the pillars of the establishment, which to me (in the UK) = government, parliament, the judiciary, the media and the monarchy, especially with Charles having Zelensky coming to visit after the White House debacle/Starmer's WH visit, and especially with Harry suing in the Royal Courts of Justice. All the anointed-by-God rubbish is just that to me: these are unaccountable holders of immense wealth and power, utterly without merit. William has even said he's not particularly religious - he, the next head of the Church of England fgs.

But, assuming we're going to buy into the construct which I think we have to seeing as republicans aren't getting anywhere, I'm interested in how this all is playing out. I see the merit of the clear cut way the Swedes do it. But I also see the merit of the way the British have always done it: fudging everything, saying as little as possible at all times, so as to leave the maximum number of doors open to deal with the crisis/opportunity du jour.

I do agree that HRH Beatrice/Eugenie is ridiculous. I'm willing to put those appellations down to Andrew being pompous and demanding. I can't believe it will last post-Charles.

But "His/Her Royal Highness": I've never actually thought about what this means other than as an indicator of seniority within the family. Neither Beatrice nor Eugenie are especially "High"!! One is married to the marketer of Portuguese timeshares and tequila, the other is leading the quiet life of a moneyed housewife married to an Italian count. They attend the odd garden party when nobody else is available, and I can't think that doesn't come as a disappointment to the attendees who fund them because they're not the real thing (for various reasons).

I also don't think blood comes into it: in the 21st century, that just doesn't cut it for me. Adoption, donation, surrogacy: all of these are just a means to an end, the end being family membership.

Maybe "royalty" should be to do with service - only.

Harry is the son of a King so he is a Royal by blood. I don't regard him as Royalty though. He has to perform Royal duties and treat his role respectfully for that. He does neither now.

Meghan is not Royal or Royalty and never will be.

I think ‘by birth’ counts. So I think Meghan is as royal, or not, as Kate or Sophie.

This surprises me.

Sophie has given her marriage over to service to the RF and its subjects (whatever that means (not much in my books, but whatever)).

Kate is going to be the next queen, and has birthed the next king.

We all know what Meghan has done for the Britain and its royal family.

I really can't put them on a par!

To the point where I think that Meghan and her children bring new meaning/value to the titles of Duchess/Prince/Princess. Princess Michael, for all her many sins, did a de minimus job. The "Princess" (plus the enormous central London luxury accommodation) were recompense for that. But Meghan and her children?

This makes sense.

So do you think Archie and Lilibet, and Beatrice and Eugenie's and Zara's and Peter's etc children are royal?

Meghan was part of the RF for all of 2 minutes. Not quite the same as Sophie or Kate.

Mike Tindall don’t count him as royal or the husbands of the york women.

Kate and Meghan are aristocrats based on their Duchess titles. Kate is also a senior working royal.

Harry and William are royal based on being born into the family. Harry isn’t a senior royal based on him not working for the family and his position in the line of succession.

But "His/Her Royal Highness": I've never actually thought about what this means other than as an indicator of seniority within the family. Neither Beatrice nor Eugenie are especially "High"!! One is married to the marketer of Portuguese timeshares and tequila, the other is leading the quiet life of a moneyed housewife married to an Italian count. They attend the odd garden party when nobody else is available, and I can't think that doesn't come as a disappointment to the attendees who fund them because they're not the real thing (for various reasons).

I think HRH is very important, at least insofar as any of this stuff is important.

It marks you out as an 'official' royal. That's why the Queen wasn't bothered about Harry and Meghan keeping their titles but insisted they not use HRH. That's why Diana was supposedly so unhappy about losing hers after the divorce.

Beatrice and Eugenie got theirs by being male line grandchildren of the monarch. It seems ridiculous now but I don't think there was any controversy about it at the time. However, attitudes had already changed by the time Edward and Sophie had their children, who had the same 'rights' to titles but whose parents 'chose' not to give them any. It really should have been changed before Harry and Meghan had children or were even married, but it would have been too much of a headache for Charles to do so later.

Just to add, Beatrice's husband isn't an 'Italian Count' as Italy abolished all noble titles when they got rid of the Monarchy. He's also more British than Italian.

Maybe "royalty" should be to do with service - only.

But wouldn't that do away with the whole concept of monarchy?

Not saying it would be a bad thing, but 'royalty' which is only about 'service' isn't really a monarchy at all. If birth conveys no special privileges, then what is the point of 'royalty'? Perhaps there isn't one!