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).

Would this be why Katharine, Duchess of Kent was often see as royal - though she stepped back from royal duties and stopped using HRH when she did so.

I don't think Princess Michael of Kent did more than odd royal engagement - did she?

They are former members of the RF. Both chose to make financial gain than represent their family privately and publicly. I wish the media would stop reporting on them and let them have the privacy that they desired instead of all this negativity/hate towards them.

I think they're both technically Princesses, aren't they? And Princess > Duchess? And Princess = royalty rather than aristocracy?

I think it is tied to the constitutional role of the monarch - those family members and spouses who regularly represent the head of state are 'royal', and I suspect practice will catch up with that (e.g. Edward and Sophie's children not using the HRH prince/princess title).

Those who spend a significant part of their life fitting that category of 'royal' (Anne, Edward & Sophie, the Kents/Gloucesters) carry on with the title, like retired senior military officers etc once they slow down/retire.

It's an honorary rank that is connected to birth/marriage, but also doing a specific job.

Everyone else is just a family member.

It just shows it’s all a nonsense. Diana was royal until she divorced. The same would be true of Sophie, Kate or Meghan. They’re just modern days chattels, really. Apart from Meghan, ironically.

A royal peerage is ranked above a 'princely' title, with the exception of Prince or Princess of Wales.

That's why William was always referred to as 'Duke of Cambridge' rather than 'Prince William' in official communications.

As for the women, the practices are still very sexist and they by default take the female form of their husband's titles. So Kate was theoretically 'Princess William'. You can understand why she didn't use that!

What you say re "HRH" denoting official royalty sounds accurate, but also means that this was HMTLQ's thought process. Something that need not survive her. As ridiculous as this sentence sounds, I think the RF is moving away from primogeniture towards a more democratic model, isn't it. So I wonder whether "HRH" will continue to hold its value.

Birth into the royal family conveys enormous special privileges (even if Harry would have you believe the opposite), but in this day and age - by which I mean more science and less religion, not the political winds of the day - the RF has to earn its keep or at least seen to be doing so. Hence Charles's slimming down of the monarchy. Maybe we aren't so far off the days of a bloated monarchy being relegated to history!

As ridiculous as this sentence sounds, I think the RF is moving away from primogeniture towards a more democratic model, isn't it.

What do you mean?

Are you saying William isn't the heir to the throne?

Royalty is all about birth order. None of them are anything special, they just got born to the 'right' people at the right time. Take that away and the whole thing collapses. Maybe that would be a good thing, but it wouldn't be monarchy.

So I wonder whether "HRH" will continue to hold its value.

I think it will have a 'value' in the sense of denoting who is and is not 'officially' royal. I don't think that will change. If anything, restricting it to those in direct line and not those married to timeshare salesmen living in Portugal, would make this clearer.

I think that sort of proves the point: if you're not a female chattel (to use your language), you can't be a royal wife. Gives you the shivers!

They are operating within a historically patriarchal framework. But I think some 'married in's create a role for themselves in time which is separate from their spouse - Sophie has made that change, the Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent did - and end up with no-one being bothered about the difference between birth and married in.

In a way that e.g. neither of Anne's husbands have - and presumably didn't want to! Again the patriarchal system? But they both had a career that could be continued alongside marrying in, in the armed forces/ equestrianism. One of the Duchesses (Kent?) became a music teacher in state schools without it being an issue.

I think in general a career in some sort of public service is easier for a married in/junior member than in the private sector. Just as I think - maybe wrong - Victoria Starmer has continued her career in the NHS? Because she can't be accused of making money from her connections.

I don't think of hem as royalty no - didn't they give up their royal status anyway?

I think of them as talentless, whiny "celebs".

I mean, it's easy to contemplate a future where (say) George decides he doesn't want to do it and Charlotte says "yes please". And their parents being supportive of that. Or, what if - this is completely, utterly hypothetical! They're just children! - George were to enter a same sex marriage or it were looking like that were a possibility. I can't see his parents denying him an honest future for the sake of the crown. A more democratic and better solution for all involved would be to pass over George. I can see the RF surviving this.

But when you are part of Netflix you will be reported on. If you put yourself on tv you’re going to be talked about, good and bad.
Unfortunately it’s extremely difficult to have privacy when you are prime tv.

That's not 'democratic' though. If George abdicated, then Charlotte would be next in line purely through birth order. It's not like anyone could apply for the job.

Prince Philip was more royal than the late Queen!
Born a Prince of Greece and Denmark.
Grandson of the King of Greece.
Great-nephew of the last Tsarina of Russia.
Great-great grandson of Queen Victoria.
His mother, Princess Alice, was born in Windsor Castle in the actual presence of Queen Victoria.
Related to pretty much every royal in Europe, including QEII herself.

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

I think the further down the generations you go, it gets a bit harder to decide, and whether or not they're working comes into play.

Queen Elizabeth's cousin, the Duke of Kent, I'd consider royal. Charles's cousin Sarah Chatto, maybe? But definitely not her children or her nieces and nephews (her brother's name escapes me).
Peter's children and Zara's children I'd say no as well - I think children of the cousin of a monarch is probably where I'd say not really royal. But I'd maybe change that view if they were working, so if Louise becomes a working royal, and then her children do as well, then yes, but I think that's pretty unlikely.

Neither - they're just awful, horrible people

I don’t think they are Royal any longer, they left but I don’t think they could ever fully escape their Royal connection.

Harry is the king’s son, that sounds pretty Royal whether they are speaking to one another or not. In fact King’s sons not speaking to Kings is pretty Royal in and of itself. They are usually all emotionally avoidant.

In the absence of a proper definition...I think I look at it this way

Tier Ia Royals - Current and future monarch and their spouses and children if working (or under 25 if not working).

Charles & Camilla
William & Catharine
George, Charlotte & Louis

Tier Ib Royals - working children of the previous monarch and their spouse (if they work to a significant extent).

Anne
Edward & Sophie

Tier II wider royal family - working descendants of any monarch and children and grandchildren of monarch & previous monarch, if not in higher tier. Only if raised within the Royal family and seen at wider family events etc.

Harry, Andrew et al

Tier III much wider royal family - great grandchildren of a monarch, if not in a higher tier + grandchildren of a monarch if not raised within the Royal family/seen at the odd event etc.

Archie, Lilly (odd I know given they are the grandchildren of the King but they have been removed so far from Royal life...) et al

Tier IV Not royal but a connection - non working spouses of children/grandchildren of a monarch & third+ generation descendants

Meghan et al

Yes, you stop being royal if you divorce

Where does leave Sarah then? Divorced 30 years. Hasn't gone quietly and uses her Duchess title constantly. Lives on a Royal Estate.

Undoubtedly considers herself 'royal'

Doesn’t make her royal. Just a grifter! And hanger on. Though I suspect that although divorced they aren’t actually separated and are partners.

Harry was born royal but chose to abandon it of his own free will. So, I think now he can't have his cake and eat it, so he isn't royal any longer. Obviously he disagrees with that 😁.
MM isn't royal, never was royal. She also chose to abandon being any part of the royal family.
H and M children are not royal. I doubt they have met their grandfather, the King, more than a handful of times. How could they be royal in any meaningful way?

Like it or not, of course Harry is Royal. How can he not be? He is the son of the King of GB.

She’s just a grifter. Her royal connections have helped her make money.

I agree.

Proximity to the Monarchy, being, and being seen to be, useful in supporting the institution effectively ( combined with being born to the right people) turns the lower-case 'r' into the upper- case 'R'.

I also think the concept of 'royal' is changing, as society has changed since the last-bastion 1950s deference to even minor royals has evaporated. We don't defer so easily to birth privilege any more.