Harry & Meghan

[SusanDoris]

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

thank you for reply, but I don't think the voice will read me that - I'll try again later.

[Spud]

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.

From the Mail today:
"Indeed, Prince Charles is thought to be in favour of a slimmed down monarchy, with fewer princes and princesses. But this shift pre-dates Harry's marriage and has nothing to do with race."

[ProfessorDavey]

From the Mail today:
"Indeed, Prince Charles is thought to be in favour of a slimmed down monarchy, with fewer princes and princesses. But this shift pre-dates Harry's marriage and has nothing to do with race."

Let's ignore the obvious - that anyone believes anything in the Mail.

Well he's hardly going to say that is about race is he. But if they wanted to slim down the monarchy with fewer princes and princesses why did they decide to make Charlotte and Louise princess and prince when the existing convention - the George V decree - wouldn't give them those titles. So it hardly rings true does it - let's reduce the number of princes and princesses by deciding to create two new ones and refuse the title to one other. Do the maths.

[Spud]

Let's ignore the obvious - that anyone believes anything in the Mail.

Well he's hardly going to say that is about race is he. But if they wanted to slim down the monarchy with fewer princes and princesses why did they decide to make Charlotte and Louise princess and prince when the existing convention - the George V decree - wouldn't give them those titles. So it hardly rings true does it - let's reduce the number of princes and princesses by deciding to create two new ones and refuse the title to one other. Do the maths.

Maybe they were prioritizing the equalization of titles in preparation for primogeniture laws about to be passed?

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe they were prioritizing the equalization of titles in preparation for primogeniture laws about to be passed?

I struggling to see how the two are related.

There is no need to change the rules on titles for second/third born children if you are changing the rules to make the first born rather than the first born son higher in line to the throne.

But the result is that under the previous rules there would have been just one prince/princess (George) amongst that generation. By changing the rules there are now three. So much for reducing the numbers of prince/princesses.

[Spud]

Prof,
Yes I thought that too. But they could end up with a situation where the eventual heir is a woman with a younger brother - if, say, George dies before William, leaving Charlotte and Louis.

[Gordon]

Prof,
Yes I thought that too. But they could end up with a situation where the eventual heir is a woman with a younger brother - if, say, George dies before William, leaving Charlotte and Louis.

Leaving aside my view that we should bin the monarchy, I can't see a problem if the heir was a female with a younger brother.

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,
Yes I thought that too. But they could end up with a situation where the eventual heir is a woman with a younger brother - if, say, George dies before William, leaving Charlotte and Louis.

Firstly - in this day and age that is pretty unlikely and also it would only be an issue if George died before he had kids himself.

But more importantly - so what, why would this be a problem. With the removal of the male hierarchy why should there be an issue with the first in line being female but with a younger brother - that's what you'd expect to happen from time to time.

[Spud]

Firstly - in this day and age that is pretty unlikely and also it would only be an issue if George died before he had kids himself.

But more importantly - so what, why would this be a problem. With the removal of the male hierarchy why should there be an issue with the first in line being female but with a younger brother - that's what you'd expect to happen from time to time.

Indeed.

So if they are intending to slim the monarchy down, focusing on the direct line of succession (ie the eldest son or daughter in each generation) would achieve this, since if William had 3 children and Harry had 2, and they all became princes/princesses on Charles becoming king, that would be five. But if only William's have the title, that makes 3, which is less than 5 (bolt of lightning).

[ProfessorDavey]

Indeed.

So if they are intending to slim the monarchy down, focusing on the direct line of succession (ie the eldest son or daughter in each generation) would achieve this, since if William had 3 children and Harry had 2, and they all became princes/princesses on Charles becoming king, that would be five. But if only William's have the title, that makes 3, which is less than 5 (bolt of lightning).

But if you are focussing on the direct line of succession then you need to focus just on George, and not Charlotte and Louis or you'll simply create the same problem the next generation - noting that Charlotte is to George as Harry is to William. So by making Charlotte and Louis Princess/Prince they are doing exactly the opposite of focussing on the direct line of succession as neither of them are on the direct line of succession.

So the slimmed down approach would be to create an equivalence for all of Charles grandchildren, with the exception of the one (George) who is in the direct line of succession. But that isn't what they've done and their decision has tripled the number of prince/princesses in that generation compared to the default approach of the George V decree.

[Spud]

Prof,
No because Charlotte and Louie's children won't become princes and princesses.

[Spud]

So the number of princes per generation will be restricted to the number of children of the son of the Prince of Wales.

[SteveH]

Some European royals actually have proper jobs. Some of our lot should follow their example.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the number of princes per generation will be restricted to the number of children of the son of the Prince of Wales.

Eh - no it would be limited to all the children of any person in direct line to the throne - so currently Charles, William and (in due course when/if he has children) George.

But the fact remains that the changes put in place by the palace has resulted in greater numbers of princes/princesses than had they not made those changes. So without the changes the only title in the youngest generation of the royal would be George. Charlotte, Louis, Archie and the as yet unborn daughter of Harry wouldn't be. So one Prince and four without those titles. The changes mean that three have the titles (George Charlotte and Louis) while two don't.

The point being if you have a claim that the changes are to slim down the royals and reduce the number of princes/princesses, your claim wont hold much water if it results in an increase, not a decrease in the number of princes/princesses.

[Anchorman]

 ......Meanwhile, back in fancy Windsor dreamland, the pampered pair also hold the titles 'Earl and countess of Dumbarton".
Why Dumbarton was singled out for this insult beats me, as neither of them has ever visited the town.
But that's royal tripe for you.

Oh...I know a dog called Prince.

[ekim]

I remember a man whose surname was Prince.  He was given the nickname 'Finger'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Not seeing the problem myself. It's up to the current monarch how many princes and princesses they want in their great-grandchildren's generation. If they only want Will's kids to have the title, their prerogative (until we lose the monarchy or change the powers of the monarchy). Which means Archie becomes a Prince (unless he says he doesn't want the title) when/if Charles becomes King regardless of Meg's unverified and vague hearsay to the contrary.

Harry has been bumped down the succession list now Wills has had kids, which isn't a surprise to him. Harry and Meg told Oprah they had been discussing with the Queen for 2 years up to Jan 2020 that they want to be part-time royals on their own terms, as and when they feel like it, while they make some money on the side with their royal profile. They got married in May 2018 - so if it's 2 years of discussion, then that discussion with the Queen had been happening since from before they got married. Not really surprising Archie didn't get made a prince or princess like Will's kids.   

It seems Will and Kate found Meg irritating / annoying and did not want to hang out with her all that much - fair enough I feel that way about some of my in-laws. It was Harry's decision to get married to a foreigner and ask her to move to Britain so it's up to the 2 of them to sort out Meg finding some friends who like her and don't find her irritating - e.g. some Americans, the celebrity crowd etc. If Meg is the type of person who needs hand-holding and baby-sitting and has mental health issues, no wonder Will cautioned Harry against marrying her so quickly before she had had a chance to understand what she was letting herself in for. Sounds stupid to deliberately blind yourself to the challenges and then blame everyone else when you fall flat on your face because you don't have the right temperament for the job.

[Spud]

Fascinating: Queen Victoria decreed in 1898,
"We do hereby declare our further Royal will and pleasure that the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of "Royal Highness" in addition to such titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or other titles of honour if any as they may otherwise possess".
George V altered this in 1917, and now Elizabeth II in 2012 has changed it back.
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

[ProfessorDavey]

Fascinating: Queen Victoria decreed in 1898,
"We do hereby declare our further Royal will and pleasure that the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of "Royal Highness" in addition to such titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or other titles of honour if any as they may otherwise possess".
George V altered this in 1917, and now Elizabeth II in 2012 has changed it back.
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

Interesting.

So George V acted to reduce the numbers of princes/princesses and the Queen has acted to increase them again.

And I gather that the changes George V brought in were specifically for that purpose - to reduce the numbers with those titles, and in doing so create a distinction between the British royal family and other european countries who he considered had a proliferation of princes and princesses.

[Spud]

Interesting.

So George V acted to reduce the numbers of princes/princesses and the Queen has acted to increase them again.

And I gather that the changes George V brought in were specifically for that purpose - to reduce the numbers with those titles, and in doing so create a distinction between the British royal family and other european countries who he considered had a proliferation of princes and princesses.

This is true. But George V had 41 cousins and siblings who were divided by the war, so he had good reason. QE II increased them for a different reason, to do with absolute primogeniture. Perhaps this is enough to show that Meghan's claim is wrong?

[ProfessorDavey]

QE II increased them for a different reason, to do with absolute primogeniture.

Sorry that makes no sense - there is no link between the two.

If you change the line of succession from first born male, to first born there is no reason why you also need to change things so that later born children become princes/princesses.

Let's, for the sake of argument compare the current situation to one where Charlotte was the first born and George the second born, but using the George V rules on who is titled prince/princess.

Succession based on first born male:
Actual: Prince George; Charlotte; Louis
Hypothetical with first born girl: Charlotte; Prince George; Louis

Succession based on first born:
Actual: Prince George; Charlotte; Louis
Hypothetical with first born girl: Princess Charlotte; George; Louis

There was absolutely no need to additionally decide to increase the number of princes/princesses from one to three.

[Spud]

Sorry that makes no sense - there is no link between the two.

But there was a link between the two, because the 2012 decree was made just before George was born and just before the law on absolute primogeniture was brought in.

If you change the line of succession from first born male, to first born there is no reason why you also need to change things so that later born children become princes/princesses.

Regardless of there being no reason to include all Kate's children, it had the effect of ensuring that had George been a girl, she would have been a princess, as would be fitting for her place in the line of succession.

Let's, for the sake of argument compare the current situation to one where Charlotte was the first born and George the second born, but using the George V rules on who is titled prince/princess.

Succession based on first born male:
Actual: Prince George; Charlotte; Louis
Hypothetical with first born girl: Charlotte; Prince George; Louis

Succession based on first born:
Actual: Prince George; Charlotte; Louis
Hypothetical with first born girl: Princess Charlotte; George; Louis

Yes, I understand how it works.

There was absolutely no need to additionally decide to increase the number of princes/princesses from one to three.

At the time there was no increase, as Kate was expecting her first. And even if (we don't know) the idea was to restrict princes and princesses to the direct line, this still makes sense, because those great grandchildren in the direct line automatically jump the queue ahead of William's brother and uncles. But regardless of whether the idea was to slim down the monarchy, the reason for the change was nothing to do with Harry's children.

[Nearly Sane]

Which of them is related to Jesus though?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But there was a link between the two, because the 2012 decree was made just before George was born and just before the law on absolute primogeniture was brought in.
Regardless of there being no reason to include all Kate's children, it had the effect of ensuring that had George been a girl, she would have been a princess, as would be fitting for her place in the line of succession.
Yes, I understand how it works.
At the time there was no increase, as Kate was expecting her first. And even if (we don't know) the idea was to restrict princes and princesses to the direct line, this still makes sense, because those great grandchildren in the direct line automatically jump the queue ahead of William's brother and uncles. But regardless of whether the idea was to slim down the monarchy, the reason for the change was nothing to do with Harry's children.

As Charles only had 2 kids, unlike Victoria's huge brood, it makes sense to give all of Will's kids the title of Prince or Princess as there is still quite a lot of the worldwide public who buy into the title and think being a Prince or Princess is something special. So until the monarchy is abolished you need a few Princes and Princesses so they can get around to open all the community centres etc and be patrons of things as it's too much for just the eldest kid to do.

The latest announcements from across the pond about a private family phone call seem to be setting the stage for how this drama is going to run and run. Can't say I'm surprised. Meg seemed like a narcissist from fairly early on who turns every issue to be about herself, her feelings and her perception of her public image over all other considerations, including family ties. Her only interest in service to others seems to be based on whatever PR she can wring out if it for herself. Seems Harry has also adopted the same attitude.

[ProfessorDavey]

But there was a link between the two, because the 2012 decree was made just before George was born and just before the law on absolute primogeniture was brought in.

Regardless of there being no reason to include all Kate's children, it had the effect of ensuring that had George been a girl, she would have been a princess, as would be fitting for her place in the line of succession.

But ensuring that the first born (rather than first born son) is both heir and a prince/princess doesn't require extending prince/princess to all children. That is an entirely distinct matter and clearly not linked to primogeniture because it (by definition) does not impact the first born child. So for example - Louis - absolute primogeniture doesn't affect him regardless of the of the birth order of George/Charlotte. However under the old rules he would not be Prince Louis - under the new rules he gains the title - a new Prince is created where one wouldn't otherwise have existed.