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

[anjulibai]

They can pass titles along, if the title is created in such a way to allow them to. 

In fact, in a few cases, titles have been recreated to allow for female succession when it was obvious a couple wasn't going to have sons but daughters. 

The problem is, most titles were created in the past to only be inherited by males, and that was written into the titles themselves. 

They'd have to do something in Parliament to change all titles to absolute primogeniture, overriding the Letters Patent (or Royal Warrants, or whatever they are called) that created the titles in the first place. 

They absolutely can have all titles created from now on to pass to the eldest, regardless of gender/sex. 

And Charlotte may well be created Duchess of York, with the ability to pass the title to her children. It is absolutely a possibility. None of these titles come with extra privileges, really, though in the past they certainly did (seat in the House of Lords, lands, that sort of stuff). 

Edited March 11, 2021 by anjulibai

[tabitha2]

Why do you think the Peerage structure will change? The next 2 monarchs don’t seem inclined to upend  an ancient system so girls can have ultimately meaning less titles. If the aristocratic ladies in question are not invested and passionate  in subject of inheritance law  and don’t start a strong movement for change the King Charles and William won’t be willing to fight for it. Queen Catherine sure Will not be rocking boats about equality of Titles either.
 

Plus with all the problems at home and abroad to Parliament has to deal with the issues  of a The Kings daughter becoming a Duchess in her own right will be right near bottom to discuss. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by tabitha2

[Topaz]

Peerage News has recently been discussing the idea of changing the inheritance of titles to gender-neutral succession. There was an article in The Times last month saying that Downing Street was having plans drawn up and the Prime Minister had said publicly that he is in favour. So the idea is definitely in current circulation.

I think it would be a mistake at the present time. With everything going on at the moment, spending parliamentary time on something that affects a tiny number of (mostly) very privileged people isn’t going to look good to the majority of the electorate. I’m not sure whether to hope they go ahead with it and shoot themselves in the foot, or hope they leave it until there’s a better chance of getting it through.

[anjulibai]

I mean, I don't think it's a huge deal, nor do I think they will change it. 

But the reality is it wouldn't be much to change it. Nor, would they need an act of Parliament to make Charlotte a Duchess, anymore than they'd need an act of Parliament to make Louis a Duke. William can create her a Duchess if he chooses. 

The only thing that would require an act of Parliament would be changes to existing titles, which frankly would not be all that complicated. 

That no one is willing to change it, or that there is no majority that wants to change it, just shows the sexism inherit in the system. 

[FluffySnowball]

3 hours 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.

That's so interesting, I learn something new here every day.

But does this change of rules only concern marriages with Catholics or with people of any other faith in general (e.g. Jews, Muslims, etc.)? 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

4 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

That's so interesting, I learn something new here every day.

But does this change of rules only concern marriages with Catholics or with people of any other faith in general (e.g. Jews, Muslims, etc.)? 

Just Catholics. It’s part of the Act of Settlement of 1688, in which James II lost his throne because he had become a Catholic. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/actofsettlement/

[FluffySnowball]

Allowing daughters to inherit and pass on royal titles in their own right sure isn’t a huge deal and it only concerns very few, very privileged people. That’s true, of course.

However, I still think it’s important, though, because feminism (aka the equality between men and women) should not only concern itself with “big” issues, but small gestures as well. And with royals still being culturally influential in the UK to date, allowing for titles to be passed on from women might be a manifestation of equality that shouldn’t be underrated. Feminism isn’t only an issue for commoners, it’s an issue for literally everyone. 

[tabitha2]

Here’s another: the husband A reigning Queen in her own right can never be a King because then he would be higher “ranking” than her. He always stays a Prince. In the past  These husbands have been not altogether happy about being second place and have acted out in different ways 

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/03/541405352/denmark-s-prince-henrik-says-he-won-t-be-buried-with-his-wife#:~:text=Denmark's Prince Henrik has repeatedly said that he,He believes that he has been discriminated against.

[Pleiades_06]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

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

Huh? Because there’s a separation of church and state? I must say that’s one of the few things I’m proud of.

Edited March 12, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy
fixed broken quote box

[Destiny]

1 hour ago, Pleiades_06 said:

Huh? Because there’s a separation of church and state? I must say that’s one of the few things I’m proud of.

I mean, there is on paper. The reality is a little different.

Seriously though, I am 100% happy that the US has no state religion. I find that very strange as well. Almost as strange as people being born to rule, but not quite.

[Topaz]

2 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

Just Catholics. It’s part of the Act of Settlement of 1688, in which James II lost his throne because he had become a Catholic. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/actofsettlement/

Catholics were the only ones excluded by religion. Anyone marrying a Buddhist, Atheist, Muslim etc. has always been able to remain in the line of succession. 

[sndral]

The whole no catholic thing started w/ Henry VIII’s desire to marry Anne Bolin circa the 1520/30s. The Pope wouldn’t give Henry VIII his annulment from his catholic wife Catherine of Aragon, so Henry said screw you to the Pope & said he was head of the English church. The rest, as they say, is history. 

QE2 had the chance in the modern era when she gave William and Harry their dukedoms to take a less sexist approach and have the titles pass to the oldest child, she went w/ the traditional male heirs language. When (if) Charles ascends it’ll be interesting to see how he recreates his father’s Dukedom for Edward, will he create it to descend to the oldest, or stick w/ the traditional oldest male. Since they aren’t creating anymore inheritable titles except for the ones created by the monarch for her family, the male only inheritance has thinned the aristocratic ranks when families don’t have sons.

It’s such an odd system, because your 8Xs great grandfather did a favor for a king/queen, or your 5Xs great grandfather bought a title from a strapped for cash king, or your 4X great grandmother had an illegitimate child/ren by a king, you have a ‘title’ to pass down for generations.

Edited March 12, 2021 by sndral

[klein_roeschen]

7 hours ago, tabitha2 said:

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?  

Abolishing the monarchy in these countries means change and people don't like change. But at the end of the day, most people in these countries couldn't care less about their royal families, because they have other problems to deal with. The investeted and obsessed people with royality are a very small minority. If these countries get rid of their monarchies today and you ask the people tomorrow what they think about this or if they want to get them back, they won't care, because it doesn't matter for their lifes.

 

5 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

Allowing daughters to inherit and pass on royal titles in their own right sure isn’t a huge deal and it only concerns very few, very privileged people. That’s true, of course.

However, I still think it’s important, though, because feminism (aka the equality between men and women) should not only concern itself with “big” issues, but small gestures as well. And with royals still being culturally influential in the UK to date, allowing for titles to be passed on from women might be a manifestation of equality that shouldn’t be underrated. Feminism isn’t only an issue for commoners, it’s an issue for literally everyone. 

From the feminist viewpoint, yes give her a title and get rid of this sexiest bullshit. But from a general equality standpoint, get rid of all these titles. Does it matter for her future life to be Duchess of whatever and pass this on to her future kids?  She is born into a very priviliged family and that alone will open her doors many of us even didn't know they exist. The same with her younger brother and her cousins. They don't need titles, coming from that family alone secures their future.

[just_ordinary]

5 hours ago, Pleiades_06 said:

Huh? Because there’s a separation of church and state? I must say that’s one of the few things I’m proud of.

No ?, but it seems for many Christians in the US it seems to be somewhat important what flavour of Christianity they are. For example- our Protestant church includes Lutheran, Unified and Reformed. It will take some actual research to find out which type the church you visit in this set up actually is. If you even realise it’s a combination and not just the Protestant Church. For many it’s just the counterpart to the RC. Because most Christians are this just by christening and don’t have any more significant ties to the religion- going to church regularly (meaning more then just around Christmas or for weddings and christenings), birth control in all forms is pretty standard, tithing doesn’t really exist, being part of a congregations as a social group like friends or colleagues is extremely rare...

We have around 45 Million Christians with a total population of 83 Million. It is almost a tie between RC (22.600.000) and the big Protestant Church (20.713.000). The other big player are the Orthodox churches with around 1,5 million members. All other Christian churches combined don’t even have reach one Million members. The average amount of RC that go to church on a Sunday is just 2 million. All stats from 2019.

People might be Christians and might even believe in Jesus and the afterlife, but their connection to the church is pretty poor. Many also look at the bible through a historical view. Interestingly, most would not say they believe in Jesus as THE saviour or see him as the son of God that died for our sins (even though we all know it’s kind of the core and all repeat it when for example saying the creeds), even though most wouldn’t deny the existence of a historical Jesus. Many are also not believing in the Christian concept of afterlife. I think we are mostly performative Christians that are in it for the holidays and because traditions can be nice (just like the BRF is you think about it).

Edited March 12, 2021 by just_ordinary

[Black Aliss]

I have zero fucks to give about the British royal fam (sorry, royalists!) but it was pretty near impossible to avoid knowing about the big Oprah interview, so this cracked me up.

Spoiler

 

[Anna Bolinas]

The stuff about passing titles through the female line is funny too because the Hanovers/Saxe-Coburgs/Windsors are only on the throne because of the female line. Depending on where you start, their claim to the British throne comes either from Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland (daughter of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York) or from Margaret's great-great-granddaughter Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia. Margaret gave the Scottish Stuarts their claim to the British throne. She had James V of Scotland, he had Mary, Queen of Scots, she had James VI/I of Scotland and England, and he had Elizabeth Stuart. Elizabeth married Frederick, King of Bohemia and Elector Palatine; her daughter, Sophia, married the Elector of Hanover; and Sophia's son, George, inherited the British throne once the main male Stuart line died out. But Sophia herself would have inherited if she had outlived her childless cousin, Queen Anne of England. 

All the stuff about women not being able to have titles or pass titles because of ~tradition~ amounts to a hill of beans if you really, really need to keep certain properties or titles within a family that only has female heirs. But it all gets obscured because of misogyny.

Also, to be more on topic--the Queen could give any of her descendants some kind of title. Even descendants of questionable legitimacy could get titles. Most of Charles II's bastards were given titles (and many of his mistresses were also given peerages in their own right, that they could even pass down to their children). And for legitimate children of younger children, they also are often given titles. Queen Victoria issued a Royal Warrant granting the title of "Highness" to the children of her youngest daughter, Princess Beatrice, even though they technically should have had a lesser title being the children of the youngest UK princess and a minor German prince. I know the circumstances of who wanted what title for Archie are muddled, but the argument that Archie can't possibly have the title of Prince or Highness because he's too far down the line of succession is bunk.

[just_ordinary]

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that he could have gotten a title, but that the BRF has decreased the titles that they give out over the centuries and that this will continue. I actually think it wasn’t even the Queen’s call. She knows her time is up sooner than later and she will try to make the transition for Charles as easily as she can (because the monarchy and he are polarising and bring lots of conflicted discussions). Now, he doesn’t have to kick them out personally (like King Gustav did with his grandchildren) when the time comes. She might have not have some thing against a title for Archie but it just doesn’t fit with the agenda. 
 

That is obviously all my personal take on it and maybe wishful thinking. I do believe they need to cut down drastically to be able to survive. I think titles without real material benefits could be given out still. It doesn’t cost anything but fits in nicely when you bring all members out. If I were them I would start bringing out the bling more and get a better stylist for Kate for the big events (she tries, but she just leaves me underwhelmed. Forget the Cambridge lovers knot for gods sake. Someone spunky like Charlotte might carry it better, but it crushes Kate. Not enough puffy hair to sit on), start a yearly gushing documentary like the Swedes (now whoever came up with that idea and sold it so them was a PR genius), develop a better social media and photo release strategy (maybe I actually apply when BP looks for employees again).

If they could get a Anne, Camilla, Sophie, Kate, Bea and Eugenie all decked out regularly- they would be gold. Sadly- they have a lack of high level young and pretty females (from an easy PR point of view).

Edited March 12, 2021 by just_ordinary

[Pleiades_06]

5 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

No ?, but it seems for many Christians in the US it seems to be somewhat important what flavour of Christianity they are. For example- our Protestant church includes Lutheran, Unified and Reformed. It will take some actual research to find out which type the church you visit in this set up actually is. If you even realise it’s a combination and not just the Protestant Church. For many it’s just the counterpart to the RC. Because most Christians are this just by christening and don’t have any more significant ties to the religion- going to church regularly (meaning more then just around Christmas or for weddings and christenings), birth control in all forms is pretty standard, tithing doesn’t really exist, being part of a congregations as a social group like friends or colleagues is extremely rare...

We have around 45 Million Christians with a total population of 83 Million. It is almost a tie between RC (22.600.000) and the big Protestant Church (20.713.000). The other big player are the Orthodox churches with around 1,5 million members. All other Christian churches combined don’t even have reach one Million members. The average amount of RC that go to church on a Sunday is just 2 million. All stats from 2019.

People might be Christians and might even believe in Jesus and the afterlife, but their connection to the church is pretty poor. Many also look at the bible through a historical view. Interestingly, most would not say they believe in Jesus as THE saviour or see him as the son of God that died for our sins (even though we all know it’s kind of the core and all repeat it when for example saying the creeds), even though most wouldn’t deny the existence of a historical Jesus. Many are also not believing in the Christian concept of afterlife. I think we are mostly performative Christians that are in it for the holidays and because traditions can be nice (just like the BRF is you think about it).

I think you are forgetting the Muslim  population in Germany. They exist, too. I know because my family is a part of it. 

Please don’t lump 330 million US Americans together based on what you understand of fundamentalism. And please don’t think people who aren’t religious are somehow morally superior to those who are. There is a trend in Germany to impose those values on everyone. 
And let’s not forget that Germany is still Christian dominant. My kids learned about Jesus in school, not from me. Christmas, Pfingsten (Pentecost) and Himmelfahrt (Ascension) are official holidays. I didn’t even know about the latter two until moving to Germany.

Europe is still Christian centered, both in values and hegemony. So is the US, but here we also have Jewish holidays off in my school school system. And in some they had Muslim holidays off. So there’s that.

Edited March 12, 2021 by Pleiades_06

[just_ordinary]

@Pleiades_06 I didn’t mention the Muslim or any non Christian religion as because they are not part of my line of argument. I doubt we will see another crowned monarch in the UK that isn’t Christian or atheist.
Germany and Europe in general are very much centred around Christianity in terms of values (I do fully acknowledge that most are the basic golden rule values you find in other religions and are widely accepted by everyone religious or not) or holidays. It is an underlying structure and many traditional customs were developed in that set up. But I would still argue that in everyday life religion and faith play a much lesser role than one would think. That’s why I think with how ceremonial the role of the Monarch is today it will get abolished and it would make no difference to the church if the Monarch is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, atheist or believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It wouldn’t make sense to have someone from a different faith as supreme governor (head of the church is no longer the official title since Elizabeth I.) but it also wouldn’t change things. The death of HMTQ will bring all sorts of changes in my opinion. Canada, Australia and New Zealand will remove the British monarch as head of state. Maybe even leave the commonwealth. The Supreme Governor of the church will go. We will only see Charles, Camilla, Wiliam, Kate and kids (till it’s time for Charlotte and Louis to fade away too). The Yorks, Anne and Wessexes will only be brought out for the balcony. Trooping the Colour will probably get remodel as well....

Germany is definitely not as secular as we like to think of ourselves. The focus on Christian holidays is a bit outdated, but I think the solution ideally would be to acknowledge all major holidays from the bigger religions (the ones relevant in your country which might fluctuate) as state holidays- so no effect on your holiday count from work. If the holidays isn’t one you celebrate it is a great opportunity to work for double wages that day (big thing for students for example, and my Muslim colleagues love this benefit over the Christmas period). But I also completely realise that this would make things very complicated in for example the education sector. Testing phases, job training weeks, project and school trip weeks, (university times are actually connected to give students for teaching the phases for practical training and testing) are a complicated and balanced system that is pretty hard to be adapted if you look at all the connections. But I am sure it could be done.

I very much know that not every religious US American is a weird Fundie, as the ones we talk about here. And I definitely don’t think religious people have less or worse values. But the majority of religious people in the US seem to value the religious part more than the ones in particularly Europe’s north and west. That doesn’t mean they are wrong, it’s just a different way of dealing with it on an individual everyday basis.

Edited March 12, 2021 by just_ordinary

[viii]

Does anyone have any proof that Charles wants to slim down the monarchy? Receipts other than Paul Burrell speaking time US Weekly, that is. 

[tabitha2]

No. It’s something someone not Charles said 20 years ago and now it is taken as absolute truth. 

[viii]

Yeah, I have never been able to find a credible source that indicates Charles plans to change the amount of working roles in the monarchy at all. 

Side note: Thinking on baby names for Sussex #2 and I think they're going to go with something that begins with M. There's an article on people.com that talked about how Meghan bought herself a Cartier watch and had the back engraved with "To M.M. from M.M." and spoke about how she wants to hand it down to a daughter someday (this was pre-Harry days). With the last name of Mountbatten-Windsor given to their children, it makes me think perhaps an M name might be on the table, which would be cute! 

[tabitha2]

Now You damn well know that girl is going to be named Diana, Probably Diana Francis or Diana Spencer ROFLMAS

[viii]

I am sure they will honour Diana in some way, which is sweet since she is Harry's mother and it's sad that she isn't around to meet her granddaughter, but I would be surprised if her first name was Diana. That's far too much pressure on a little girl. I assume Harry will follow suit as William did and honor her in some form by her middle name. 

[formergothardite]

It seems rather mean and petty to laugh at someone naming their daughter after her grandmother who died. That wouldn't be unusual at all.