Jump to content
IGNORED

Meghan and Harry 5: Oprah, Racism, and Gossip! Oh My!


nelliebelle1197

Recommended Posts

New thread, new chance to embarrass ourselves.

 

 

Edited by nelliebelle1197
  • Haha 12
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Per @nelliebelle1197 -- Harry is the same position as Princess Anne's kids at the moment - Zara Phillips' kids aren't titled as prince or princess Andrew's grandchildren won't be either.

Anne & her then-husband, Mark Phillips, turned down the Queen's offer of a title for a newborn Peter, their first child. Peter did not have a title at birth because titles can only be "inherited" through the male line. In this, the BRF is a pretty classic example of male primogeniture.

For much of the time the BRF & other Brit nobility have been around, it's really been all about property (= money) and marrying so as acquire more property. Of course, whoever had more property/money usually had more power. This is why it was SOP for many centuries to set up betrothals and marriages, even between infants or children. The families involved had to secure their existing property & future expectations of acquiring more. This is also why the Black Death in the 14th century really fucked up things for these asshats -- it greatly reduced the available number of suitable heirs & heiresses. Unfortunately for British royalty & nobility, Yersinia pestis didn't give a shit about people's ranks.

  • Upvote 6
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the British, Irish and Scottish  Aristocracy with a few exceptions is still strictly male line primogeniture. A few Noblewomen are fighting it but no one is taking them very seriously as of the present.

Edited by tabitha2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Male line primogeniture drives me nuts. I keep thinking the crown should go to Zara as the first born girl to a first born girl. 

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be happy then The rest of the European monarchies  aside from Spain and Monaco abolished it decades ago. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Pleiades_06 said:

Male line primogeniture drives me nuts. I keep thinking the crown should go to Zara as the first born girl to a first born girl. 

The male line primogeniture ended in 2013, coincidentally just before Charlotte was born. It was a good time to do it, since the next three heirs are male and no one will have to spend his life being resentful about it. 

Here’s what https://www.royal.uk/succession says about it: “The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011. The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession. The changes came into force in all sixteen Realms in March 2015.”

It’s retroactive to a specific date in 2011 because it had been agreed in principle then. Of course there are still lots of gender differences, including the basic principle that a woman takes her husband’s title but a man doesn’t take his wife’s title. Zara is “Mrs. Michael Tindall” on the Royal.uk succession page (but she’s currently the the last one they list, and they haven’t added Eugenie’s son yet, so her time on the page may not be long). U.K. aristocratic titles still have primogeniture.

Edited by QuiverFullofBooks
Added something
  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

The Act also ended the provisions by which those who marry Roman Catholics are disqualified from the line of succession.

They finally got around to this, did they?

Tell me again how this family isn't rooted in bigotry.  How could even one penny of tax payer money be given to an institution that has this in it's very rulebook.

  • Upvote 10
  • Downvote 1
  • Haha 1
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair the Government had to change this by enacting legislation. The monarch can’t control who inherits the throne or give the throne away contrary to what tabloid rags say 

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

From someone who just criticized a stranger for announcing her pregnancy "way before the 12 week mark" and for some reason piling on that Diana announced her pregnancy on Valentine's Day.  A sacred holy day I don't know about?

Quote from @HerNameIsBuffy

No, Idc if she announces in whatever week, but to announce at someone elses wedding is tacky. I only mentioned the "early" announcement, because it cannot even be explained away by being the typical 12 week mark and thus "had to be announced" they could have easily announced it later and not AT A WEDDING whilst emphasising a non-existant bump...

I don't even pile on the Valentines Day thing, but this time she announces at like 6 months along (which is her right) but EITHER it "randomly" coincides with Eugenies special announcement AGAIN (which would be max level petty) OR she chose the day as a nod to Diana and Harry, because the pregnancy with him was announced on that day (which would be a cute nod to it)....or she just wanted to get it out before the interview, idk

But I honestly feel as if my posts do not come across as intended and thats fine, it is not my native language after all.

For some in this thread this whole situation seems to be purely the fault of the royal family and Harry and Meghan are the poor victims. Whilst I agree on that on the tabloid front (that extends to every single human being that is hurt by their ruthlessness though) I personally see the issue between them and the royal family a little more nuanced. I think we only have one side of the story and not a very clear one and knowing conflicts in general, there is often not a black and white clear culprit but a heap of misunderstandings where there is not just one right version of events.

Edited by Babsi
typo
  • Upvote 10
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Pleiades_06 said:

Male line primogeniture drives me nuts. I keep thinking the crown should go to Zara as the first born girl to a first born girl. 

Not just you. The first born penis gets everything, title, wealth and property and status, no matter how fit or unfit for that. No wonder history is full of feuds and bloody conflicts between members of powerfull families. Heck, if you look very simplistic and take out France and Japan, WWI was a family fight between various grandsons of Victoria I of Great Britain on a much larger scale. And the rest of the children get peanuts. A girl may have the chance to marry another first born and get the perks, but thats it.

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

They finally got around to this, did they?

Tell me again how this family isn't rooted in bigotry.  How could even one penny of tax payer money be given to an institution that has this in it's very rulebook.

At the moment I entertain the thought of what would happen if a roman catholic became the next head of the church of England. Or more entertaining, what if she/ he is even a member of a non- christian religion.

And yes, how such a thing can be ok for tax payers. It far cheaper to vote in a kind of figure head to use as a ceremonial head of state without all the hassle. And you can get rid of this person when it became public that you used your influence to save a son of yours from legal trouble because he used the services of his very dear friend in traficking underage girls for your entertainment.

  • Upvote 7
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Male line primogeniture drives me nuts. I keep thinking the crown should go to Zara as the first born girl to a first born girl. 

This. I’m not sure whose kid Zara is, but the idea of a male going first because penis makes me mad. It’s seriously fucked up. Of course, the whole concept of being born to rule is fucked up and needs to be ditched.
  • Upvote 6
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Destiny said:


This. I’m not sure whose kid Zara is, but the idea of a male going first because penis makes me mad. It’s seriously fucked up. Of course, the whole concept of being born to rule is fucked up and needs to be ditched.

Zara is the only daughter of the Queen’s only daughter, Princess Anne.

  • Thank You 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zara is the only daughter of the Queen’s only daughter, Princess Anne.

I’m not sure I even remembered she had a daughter. I’m sure that I have had to have seen a picture or whatever at some point but I forgot all about her. I assume she was the firstborn?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess to ya’ll the millions of people in Sweden, Norway , Britain, Spain, Monaco, Japan , Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands , Luxembourg and all the others I have forgotten  who appreciate, support and enjoy their Royal families  so want to keep them and don’t mind paying for them are just deluded fools who need to educated in the right thinking then?  
 

If so that’s just so insulting and arrogant IMO
 


Also History tells us when the people truly don’t want a Royal family they act and they get rid of it very decisively. The ones still Around are popular enough to have survived. 
 

@Destiny Anne has two children Peter and Zara. Peter is the elder. 

 

 

Edited by tabitha2
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Destiny said:

I’m not sure I even remembered she had a daughter. I’m sure that I have had to have seen a picture or whatever at some point but I forgot all about her. I assume she was the firstborn?

No, Charles is the oldest. But because Anne was a girl, she's after her younger brothers in the line of succession.

Birth Order

  1. Charles, November 1948
  2. Anne, August 1950
  3. Andrew, February 1960
  4. Edward, March 1964

Succession:

  1. Charles (and his descendants)
  2. Andrew (and his descendants)
  3. Edward (and his descendants)
  4. Anne (and her descendants)
  • Upvote 5
  • Thank You 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bethella said:

No, Charles is the oldest. But because Anne was a girl, she's after her younger brothers in the line of succession.

Birth Order

  1. Charles, November 1948
  2. Anne, August 1950
  3. Andrew, February 1960
  4. Edward, March 1964

Succession:

  1. Charles (and his descendants)
  2. Andrew (and his descendants)
  3. Edward (and his descendants)
  4. Anne (and her descendants)

Gotcha. That’s not even a little sexist, is it? ?

  • Upvote 3
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should point out that the same thing happened to Edward's children (born before the 2011 cutoff), so that the younger son, James comes before his older sister Louise in the order of succession.

  • Upvote 4
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m glad they fixed that at least. I still think the whole concept of born to rule is weird and forked up. 

I’m also pretty sure that I didn’t know Edward existed either. 

The only time I’ve voluntarily cared about royals is when i keep hearing that there’s a big wedding coming up because BFF and I enjoy being total bitchy stereotypes about the often questionable fashion and hat choices being made. 

Edited by Destiny
  • Upvote 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Cambridge kids are really the main ones the change in succession rules affected. Had George been born second, and Charlotte born first, Charlotte would be the heir. As it is, she's ahead of Louis in the succession. 

  • Upvote 8
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t get So excited: Titles still are strictly Male line only aside from a ver small handful of cases . That’s why Prince Edwards young son  is Viscount and his older sister is just a Lady and The Duke of York will revert to the Crown after Andrew passes 
 

Unless she married it As it is Charlotte will never get a title of her own.  No Duchess of York like Andrew got as the Monarchs second child as That will go to Louis. No whatever the female Equivalent to the Earl of Wessex either. 
 

Thus She can’t pass any Royal title to her descendants and her husband gets no title. When and if she marries she will the Princess Charlotte, Mrs. John Smith 

 

Not saying this won’t all change in 20 years but considering how there is no  serious discontent or strong move to change this culture even from the Aristocratic ladies themselves  that’s not a given by ant stretch. 

 


 

 

Edited by tabitha2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

As it is Charlotte will never get a title of her own though . No Duchess of York like Andrew got as the Monarchs second child as That will go to Louis. No whatever the female Equivalent to the Earl of Wessex either. 

Really?? That’s infuriating. 

  • I Agree 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, they could make Charlotte something if they wanted.

If Princess Anne dies while William is King, Charlotte could be made Princess Royal, as that's the traditional title given to the eldest daughter of the monarch. It's for life, though, so that's why Anne would have to have died. 

And there really isn't any rule saying a woman can't be made a peer. Woman have been made peers in their own rights, and there are a few peerages that allow for female succession if a male heir isn't available. Charlotte could be made Duchess of York, if Andrew has died by the time William is king, or sometime after. 

There's no rule preventing females from being getting extra titles, except that it's not traditionally done, outside the Princess Royal title (which was created in imitation of the title Madame Royal that the French kings gave to their eldest daughters). 

  • Upvote 9
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s pretty useless to draw conclusions to the older generation when it’s pretty obvious the monarchy (in their slow ways) is adapting. 
Charlotte and Louis might be titled, but they will probably never play a big role. The question of being a working royal comes after they have finished education (those children will successfully visit a renowned university no matter their actual intellectual abilities), they have enough contacts to secure nice, well paying jobs. They also are rich enough to just be humanitarians or lazy partying jet setters. They might turn up at big events, but they will not be full time working royals. Their children won’t be privy to titles. Charlotte might make the cut for the simple and sexist fact that she is a Princess. Realistically, no one cares for the males.

Everyone knows that the high in members monarchy is outdated. They will have to find other ways to work (you cannot pull those numbers with just a handful of people). The public is saying this for years, but everyone knows it will be up to Charles and Wiliam to do it.

This generation of royal children will grow up with a very different set of regulations. 

Archie might have been given the HRH if he would have been a girl. I can totally see them, delaying their “austerity measures” to cash in on the hype of another Princess. But maybe the future would have won under any circumstances.

 

I find the loosening around the RC membership much more interesting. This might mean the crown’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England will get ceased? Or maybe they have realised that people are actually not letting religion form their decisions and world view anymore. It’s a more honorary role anyway nowadays and it doesn’t matter what the crown believes. But it would look strange if the role prevails but is held by someone from a different religion. On the other hand- the BRF will probably make sure all heirs get christened into the Church of England. Converting is pretty rare- it would require to put a lot of importance on the matter and a massive focus on faith - which is very much not the norm. I mean- most couldn’t care less if they are RC, Protestant (Lutheran/Unified or reformed) or Church of England. It makes no difference for your life but maybe 5% (being generous here).

Another reason why it’s hard for Europeans to understand the US in that regard sometimes.

5 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

I mean, they could make Charlotte something if they wanted.

If Princess Anne dies while William is King, Charlotte could be made Princess Royal, as that's the traditional title given to the eldest daughter of the monarch. It's for life, though, so that's why Anne would have to have died. 

And there really isn't any rule saying a woman can't be made a peer. Woman have been made peers in their own rights, and there are a few peerages that allow for female succession if a male heir isn't available. Charlotte could be made Duchess of York, if Andrew has died by the time William is king, or sometime after. 

There's no rule preventing females from being getting extra titles, except that it's not traditionally done, outside the Princess Royal title (which was created in imitation of the title Madame Royal that the French kings gave to their eldest daughters). 

I mean the Queen is the Duke of Lancaster. The problem I find is, that women holding the title is just lip service. They cannot inherit it or pass it on and I think that needs Parliament to change but I am not sure. It’s a pretty patriarchal tradition and one I think needs to be changed ASAP (if you don’t abolish the monarchy all together). I think we might see this in time when Charlotte marries, if the monarchy is doing well.

The Princess Royal title is just a cheap imitation compared to a Dukedom in my opinion. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

us She can’t pass any Royal title to her descendants and her husband gets no title. When and if she marries she will the Princess Charlotte, Mrs. John Smith 

 

Not saying this won’t all change in 20 years but considering how there is no  serious discontent or strong move to change this culture even from the Aristocratic ladies themselves  that’s not a given by ant stretch. 

 


 

 

I do expect that she will be created The Princess Royal. (Currently Anne has this title) But I believe the title doesn't come with any tangible benefits of any kind, it's just a fancy name for the eldest (or only) daughter. 

 

I must say, it annoys me to no end that Charlotte will not be The Duchess of York in her own right. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of things could happen yes but is at all likely in the near future? No. Charles and William are  trained in old School  ways under Elizabeth and while Charles is a little eccentric in man ways he is Rock solid about duty and Royal tradition. 
 

Maybe The Duke of York Title would naturally go to Beatrice as his eldest child not to Charlotte though but I really have no idea how it would work. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HerNameIsBuffy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.