Harry & Meghan

[Udayana]

I have a solution: just get rid of this dysfunctional institution.

Agree entirely, but it's turned into a soap that will run on without end...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

According to Spud's link it was to equalise the titles of the Queen's future great-grandchildren to reflect the planned introduction of absolute primogeniture. So not to equalise the titles of all her great-grandchildren - just the ones belonging to the children of the first born of the first born who would inherit whatever goes with inheriting the throne. So I gather this means that if the first born was a girl she would be a Princess and become Queen rather than it passing to a younger brother so the change for equality of sex introduced by Liz meant all Will's babies were entitled to have titles.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have a solution: just get rid of this dysfunctional institution.

As a republican if the choice were mine and mine alone that's what I'd do. But realistically there isn't sufficient support at the moment for getting rid of the royals entirely. It will, of course, be interesting to see how public opinion shifts when the Queen dies and Charles becomes King. My perception is that a huge amount of the public support is actually for the Queen rather than for the institution of monarchy.

However, if there isn't sufficient groundswell to get rid of them entirely then we should consider how the monarchy should be reformed and slimmed down from its current over-blown state that helps generate the corrosive mutually parasitic relationship with the media.

And actually one of the big problems over generations has been the 'spare' in 'heir and spare'. It is crazy enough to have the heir twiddling their thumbs for decades doing a non-job waiting for their parent to die. But for the 'spare' they are effectively expected to devote their whole lives in a non-job without the slightest chance of getting the top job. And this has created huge problems generation after generation - Margaret, Andrew and now Harry.

So if we cannot get rid of the monarchy I'd like to see reforms whereby only those in the direct line are effectively the working royal - all others are expected to earn their keep effectively as a private individual, rather than expected to be a full time royal. If, in the very very unlikely eventuality a whole bunch of people die unexpectedly and they had to attain the throne, well wouldn't it be a breath of free air if that person had lived most of their life making an ordinary living (or rather the kind of ordinary living that the top elite make ).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think part of the problem is the idea that royal patronage raises the profile of organisations. All these charities and other organisations expecting a royal to turn up to open something or attend something or raise the profile of an issue. The RF want to slim the monarchy and at the same time they seem to want to make sure there are enough royals to go round to attend things and have a work-life balance. They want privacy but at the same time need to generate enough interest from the media to raise the profile of charities and organisations when they turn up to open things or make speeches.

How tedious and frustrating it must be to know how unremarkable and irrelevant you really are compared to the rest of the world but all the while being expected to be a figurehead for people to look up to. Looks like Meghan and Harry have said sod this, let's make some real money from the celebrity nonsense rather than do the whole service and duty rubbish. Celebrity is a dangerous game - cue mental health problems for them and their off-spring as they expose themselves to the media and the public to look, comment and judge their opinions, behaviour and looks in return for status, wealth and real-estate.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think part of the problem is the idea that royal patronage raises the profile of organisations. All these charities and other organisations expecting a royal to turn up to open something or attend something or raise the profile of an issue.

But I think that is a perculiarity of the UK and I am not convinced that a D-list royal will bring greater profile/money than an A-list (or even B, C or D-list) non royal celebrity.

I think we simply have this rather bizarre tradition that royals expect to be patrons of charities, and charities expect to have royal patrons. Has anyone really looking into whether this actually helps the charity rather than being merely a tradition.

And there is another issue - if royal patronages of charities are effectively just handed out I suspect in many, if not most, cases the royal in question has no special interest in the charity - they just been assigned that charity as part of their 'job'. So I imagine a charity will get far more out of a genuinely interested non royal celebrity than a uninterested royal performing the role.

And let's not forget that the UK isn't the only country that does 'charity' - most other countries, including many without royals, do so too. And they seem to operate fine without royal patronage - in fact there are some countries, e.g. the US where the notion of charitable foundations is much larger than in the UK.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is how I see things playing out.
When the queen passes on and while Charles waits for his coronation, Britain will show it's collective ignorance by clamouring for William to be crowned King, as time goes by, the unconstitutionality of the collective position (52 to 48)will cause the presiding Tory party to get a bit scared and pander to the mob. They will change the law by which time people will have cottoned on to a ''Does it have to be a royal, what abaht a celebrity loved by everyone? Enter Joe the First of The House of Pasquale.

Of course this is a complete fantasy. What country would possibly choose someone to rule over them who had been a TV personality and entertaining clown?

[Anchorman]

I have a solution: just get rid of thi   




s dysfunctional institution.

   

[Owlswing]

In all this kerfuffle one name is noticeably absent.

Princess Anne.

She has an impressive list of charities and other organisations of which she is a supporter and apart from her divorce she just gets her head down and does whatever is needed by the organisations that she supports.

I honestly think that it would do the monarchy a favour if, on the death of his mother, Charles decided that he was too old to be King and let William, leaving aside his attitude to and treatment of his brother and MM, take the throne instead.

I have said before that I am a monarchist but Charles and Andrew have done the institution no favours.

However, the Queen Mother lived to 101, Philip is 100, so there may well be at least another seven years before the question of the succession need be addressed.

Owlswing

)O(


 

[Spud]

According to Spud's link it was to equalise the titles of the Queen's future great-grandchildren to reflect the planned introduction of absolute primogeniture. So not to equalise the titles of all her great-grandchildren - just the ones belonging to the children of the first born of the first born who would inherit whatever goes with inheriting the throne. So I gather this means that if the first born was a girl she would be a Princess and become Queen rather than it passing to a younger brother so the change for equality of sex introduced by Liz meant all Will's babies were entitled to have titles.

This is consistent with George V's decree concerning the son of the son of the Prince of Wales. Let's say George had been a girl: if as the eldest she had been next in line after William, she would have become queen without first being a princess. So George V"s rule about only the first grandson taking the title of Prince had to be changed to include any older sisters. Perhaps not all his siblings, though.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is consistent with George V's decree concerning the son of the son of the Prince of Wales. Let's say George had been a girl: if as the eldest she had been next in line after William, she would have done so without first being a princess. So George V"s rule about the first grandson only taking the title of Prince had to be changed to include any older sisters and by extension all his siblings.

But George V's decree also indicated that all children and grandchildren of a reigning monarch would automatically be offered the title of Prince or Princess. So by that decree (which I don't believe is altered by the Queen's decree which applies only to William's children) then Archie and any other children Harry and Meghan have should be automatically be offered the title of Prince/Princess when Charles becomes King (as they will then be the grandchildren of a reigning monarch).

However it is being reported that they had been informed that this wouldn't happen and that their children wouldn't be offered the title of Prince/Princess not only while the Queen is monarch, but also when Charles becomes monarch.

Now whether the offer of the title is taken up is up to the parents involved, but again reports indicate not having a title was not the Sussex's choice but a decision imposed by the palace.

Now this may all be incorrect and perhaps Archie will become Prince Archie when Charles becomes King (as the decree indicates). However if the reports are correct it does provide evidence of exceptionalism in a negative manner towards the Sussexes and their children.

[SweetPea]

This is from Town and Country - they usually know a thing or two about The RF:

If things remain as they currently stand, that could change when his grandfather becomes the monarch. “Archie will be able to use the title of HRH Prince when Charles becomes King,” says royal historian Carolyn Harris, author of Raising Royalty: 1000 Years of Royal Parenting, told Town & Country shortly after Archie’s birth. She added, “but it is possible that he will not use this title. Archie will not be able to pass the title of Prince or Princess to his children as they will be another generation removed from the sovereign, but the title of Duke of Sussex will pass to Prince Harry's male line descendants.” (Male line refers to the system of patrilineage, in which a child inherits titles from their father, not their mother—unless their mother happens to be Queen.)

Also:

Technically, when Archie was born, he could have used the title of Earl of Dumbarton because he is a great-grandson of the monarch in the male line, and because his father, Prince Harry, has a ducal title (the Duke of Sussex). At the time, it was thought that Harry and Meghan had chosen to forgo the title for their son—but in the Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey, Meghan said that wasn’t the case. She claimed that it was, in fact, the institution of the monarchy that didn’t want her and Harry’s child to have a title, which the couple learned while she was pregnant with Archie.

More here:
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a27421887/archie-harrison-mountbatten-windsor-title-prince-charles-king/

[Spud]

If William as king died without having any children, the next in line would be Harry. Hence the need for all grandchildren of the monarch to be princes/princesses. But as soon as William has heirs, those children precede Harry and so there is no absolute need for William's siblings and cousins to be princes/princesses (which seems unfair but this shows how the system is inherently unfair - at least they keep their titles though). So going by the apparent need, from the time of George V, to slim down the monarchy, you might want to limit those given that title to the first several in line. Somewhere down the line of succession they have to stop having the title prince(ss) and those at that point are bound to feel disadvantaged.

[Spud]

I guess if William had not had children, then Harry's kids would need the title prince(ss). But as soon as William did have children, that need was reduced.

[Udayana]

ffs they can make up any rules they like to include or exclude anyone depending on who they care about at any point! It's a silly game.

[ProfessorDavey]

I guess if William had not had children, then Harry's kids would need the title prince(ss). But as soon as William did have children, that need was reduced.

The issue isn't one of need - frankly no-one needs the title of Prince or Princess.

The issue is whether there is evidence that the palace was acting in a manner towards Harry and Meghan which wasn't in accordance with normal protocol and could be construed as unfair treatment towards them in comparison to other royals in a similar position.

Now of course this is potentially disputed, but if the reports (e.g. in the Times today) are correct that the palace indicated to them that their children would not be entitled to the title of Prince/Princess, not just now, but even when they become the grandchildren of the monarch, then there does appear to be evidence or unreasonable treatment. Specifically because it would run counter to the agreed protocol of the offer of titles, as per the George V decree.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I guess we will not know what exactly was said during conversations about Archie and a title. People's recollection of conversations are not always accurate and are coloured by emotion and perceptions and people often believe their memories even when contradicted by objective evidence. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It will just be accusations and counter-accusations, which is all part of the drama Harry and Meghan need to make money from their soap opera.

I get that everyone thinks something should be done to reform the current institutions but I doubt reform will eliminate the toxic personal issues and baggage each individual in an organisation brings with them. There is no way to prevent people from experiencing what they perceive as toxic behaviour as they go through life. No one can anticipate how someone else will react to words because of their personal experiences and what mental health issues these perceptions will cause and what mental health issues the RF have as part of their baggage. No doubt most of that family have felt unsupported and depressed and lost etc etc along with many other ordinary members of the public living ordinary lives.

Meghan's current toxic behaviour to others will be attributed to her mental health issues and any toxic behaviour she has experienced will be attributed to someone else's mental health issues and so it goes on in endless cycles. Harry is an adult and feels let down by his father, who is an adult and feels let down by Harry and round and round it goes.

What seems to be clear is that putting yourself in a the public domain creates an increased risk of mental health issues due to wider exposure to the public and the opportunities for public comment.

Certain roles also carry a higher risk of exposure to toxic behaviour - e.g. the higher up in management people go the more stress they face as they become more of a target for blame as the public face as well as having to deal with inter-personal issues and disagreements, hurt feelings etc amongst the people who report to them. Hence many people do not want these roles, preferring a less stressful, lower-paid role.

The mental stress that goes with being a public figure as part of the RF is one of the reasons Harry's previous girlfriends did not want to marry him. If Meghan was ever serious about staying and being part of the RF she would have set up a support system to deal with the inevitable mental health issues that go with the job. Harry had publicly spoken about his own mental health issues enough times and spoken about the reason why his girlfriends would not commit to a life as a royal. I think she was always looking for a quick exit to the US after a suitable period of time as a way to access the lucrative deals and free herself from the restrictions of Royal protocol.

[Spud]

The issue isn't one of need - frankly no-one needs the title of Prince or Princess.

The issue is whether there is evidence that the palace was acting in a manner towards Harry and Meghan which wasn't in accordance with normal protocol and could be construed as unfair treatment towards them in comparison to other royals in a similar position.

Now of course this is potentially disputed, but if the reports (e.g. in the Times today) are correct that the palace indicated to them that their children would not be entitled to the title of Prince/Princess, not just now, but even when they become the grandchildren of the monarch, then there does appear to be evidence or unreasonable treatment. Specifically because it would run counter to the agreed protocol of the offer of titles, as per the George V decree.

Yes I know that is an issue. I'm saying that we also need to understand why the Queen only mentioned William's children in her 2012 decree, and if that reason means that the palace are or are not being unfair to H&M in denying their children titles.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes I know that is an issue. I'm saying that we also need to understand why the Queen only mentioned William's children in her 2012 decree, and if that reason means that the palace are or are not being unfair to H&M in denying their children titles.

No that is broadly a red herring - the 2012 decree applies only to William's kids so isn't directly relevant to Harry's.

However prior to either William or Harry having kids the default position under the 1917 decree was:

1. While the Queen is monarch only George is a Prince - none of the other children of either William or Harry receive the title of Prince/Princess (as those titles are not given to the great-grandchildren of a monarch except for the direct in-line, in this case George).

2. When the Queen dies and Charles becomes King - all the other children of William and all of Harry's kids are automatically offered the title of Prince/Princess (as those titles under the 1917 decree are automatically offered to all grandchildren of the current monarch).

So that's the default - but there appear to have been two changes to this - one is definite, the other widely reported.

1. That despite the 1917 decree - Charlotte and Louis automatically became Prince/Princess at birth rather than when the Queen dies (the 2012 decree).

2. That despite the 1917 decree Harry's children will not be offered the title of Prince/Princess when the Queen dies (the reported decision on the palace regarding the Sussexes children).

So on the basis that there reports are correct (I know that is an assumption) there has been a change from the default 1917 position that specifically advantages William's kids (well specifically Charlotte and Louis) and another change from the default 1917 position that specifically disadvantages Harry's kids.

You can see why they might consider this to be unreasonable, particularly when clouded by the race issue.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ffs they can make up any rules they like to include or exclude anyone depending on who they care about at any point! It's a silly game.

I so agree with this post.

[Nearly Sane]

I so agree with this post.

And I agree with this post

[SweetPea]

This statement is a wee bit strong but otherwise an interesting discussion (6.5mins long):

Harry & Meghan: A Grotesque and Disgusting Spectacle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF6v7YuRDWA   
 

[Aruntraveller]

Seen elsewhere:

If you are offended by Harry & Meghan's interview, but not so much by Andrew's interview, then your moral compass is really off.

[SusanDoris]

This statement is a wee bit strong but otherwise an interesting discussion (6.5mins long):

Harry & Meghan: A Grotesque and Disgusting Spectacle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF6v7YuRDWA   
 

What was all that about?! An advert for a telescope and then a long ad for some fitness trainer's ad. I listened for ages but nothing about Meghan and Harry!

[SweetPea]

Seen elsewhere:

If you are offended by Harry & Meghan's interview, but not so much by Andrew's interview, then your moral compass is really off.

Yes, I'd agree. I was offended by neither interviews. Andrew's position in the Epstein case is just very annoying.

I'm interested in different views on various subjects.

[SweetPea]

What was all that about?! An advert for a telescope and then a long ad for some fitness trainer's ad. I listened for ages but nothing about Meghan and Harry!

Susan, when you see the advert for the telescope click on 'skip ads' after a countdown of seconds.