Meghan and Harry 6: Everything about this Is Kind of Cringe

[HerNameIsBuffy]

27 minutes ago, Xanariel said:

I think the chances of Harry getting his title and succession rights revoked without Andrew getting his taken away too are slim to none - partially because whatever else Harry has done, it's nothing compared to Andrew's doings, and also partially because if you kick Harry and his kids out of the succession then Andrew is next in line after Louis, and I don't think anyone wants to risk him as king. 

I do think though that they should establish what's going to happen to Harry's kids when Charles takes the throne. They're going to be born titleless, raised outside of the UK and never carry out royal duties - there's not really a reason to have them as Prince Archie and Princess X several years down the line. It'll look pretty silly - especially with the optics of two fully American kids getting called Your Royal Highness by a population they don't even live among. 

No one knows what the future holds and I don't see why it would look any sillier than giving any child titles for possible future job duties.  I mean outside of fans of the monarchy a lot of people find the titles silly to begin with.  

I am openly biased against any system that takes not only gender but birth order into account while deciding how important to the organization one sibling is as opposed to another...not to mention assigning future employment to babies from the moment of conception based on not only their birth order but that of their parents so I don't see how any of that can be defended.  But if you're going to give honorary titles to kids, Harry's are Charles grandchildren just as much as William's are and they should be offered whatever titles would be appropriate if they were still in the UK and it's up to their parents to decline if they think that's best.  

Edited May 27, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy
riffles

[MomJeans]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I know I said I now understand this stuff, but clearly I don't fully get it yet.

It's just an honorary thing, right?  The HRH?  Like I know different levels of monarchy have different powers (I'm tired, words are hard) but HRH is just kind of like their name because they get it from being a son of a monarch, or descended through one of the sons?  So HRH kind of like part of Andrew's name?  I think he should be stripped of everything which bestows honor, but in a practical sense it doesn't matter regarding what he's allowed to do or money, correct?

Today, it denotes how to address that person.  HRH is the "highest" form of address.  So if I was introducing Prince Harry, I would introduce him as "HIs Royal Highness, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex".**  Those that follow bowing/curtsying conventions would also do so to anyone with a HRH designation when meeting them.  

In the past, it was also a way of signifying the status between royals.  Today, it doesn't really denote a royal's state powers.  For example, Prince Albert of Monaco is "HSH Prince Albert of Monaco" (His Serene Highness), which is lower than HRH. But Prince Albert has far more legal authority and power than Queen Elizabeth.  There are German royals who have HRH designations but no actual role with their respective municipalities. 

And there is no formal rule for all monarchies on how to designate a person.  In Sweden and Norway, for example, both Kings have removed HRH designations, not as punishments, but to clarify that a certain royal will not be working as a member of the monarchy.  

(As for Harry & Megan- though a year ago I would have never thought their "HRH" status would be removed, now I'm not so sure.  If it is removed, it will be part of a complete overall of how the title is used in general.  Sweden now only bestows it on family members that will be full-time working royals, and personally, I think that's what it should be used for.  In other words, I think there are quite a few British royal family members that should not have an HRH designation.)

**I may have missed a "the" or other formality

Edited May 27, 2021 by MomJeans

[Xanariel]

2 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

But if you're going to give honorary titles to kids, Harry's are Charles grandchildren just as much as William's are and they should be offered whatever titles would be appropriate if they were still in the UK and it's up to their parents to decline if they think that's best.  

The trouble is, politics and optics matter to the royals, and the general UK doesn't want a big royal family. By not granting Archie and his siblings titles from the get-go, it looks like the BRF were trying to avoid what happened in Sweden, where the existing grandchildren had their titles removed apart from the Crown Princess' kids (in which case the York girls would likely be on the chopping block). 

Meghan can claim that the family doesn't have the "right" to take the title away, but they very much do. It's not up to her and Harry to choose to have it, only to decline it, just as they didn't get to decide the ducal titles granted at the wedding. 

Archie and his siblings are Charles' grandkids, but they aren't being raised in the UK, they won't be working royals and they aren't the same as William's kids, just as Zara and Mark weren't the same as Charles' kids. Harry and Meghan might complain at how unfair that is, but they aren't going to find much sympathy from the general population for saying "We won't ditch our titles because we're better than the plebs, but how unjust and cruel that an accident of birth puts William ahead of us!" 

Ultimately, while Harry is unlikely to get his title removed, polling recently showed that more UK citizens than not want it stripped from him. He and Meghan have seen massive drops in their popularity - and while you could say 'a monarchy is not a democracy' the BRF has generally survived by being flexible to public opinion. That's the whole reason King George originally had the massive title clear-out over a century ago. 

So given the likely reaction in the UK to the idea of American Prince Archie turning up after not setting foot in the UK for years and being called "Your Royal Highness", I think the BRF will be leery of upgrading the kids - particularly as there wasn't much of a reaction to Meghan's claim that Archie was unfairly denied a title. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by Xanariel

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I know I said I now understand this stuff, but clearly I don't fully get it yet.

It's just an honorary thing, right?  The HRH?  Like I know different levels of monarchy have different powers (I'm tired, words are hard) but HRH is just kind of like their name because they get it from being a son of a monarch, or descended through one of the sons?  So HRH kind of like part of Andrew's name?  I think he should be stripped of everything which bestows honor, but in a practical sense it doesn't matter regarding what he's allowed to do or money, correct?  

HRH is best seen as a title/form of address like Mr. or Dr.  It denotes status.  It does not denote power.  None of the royals except the Queen have any real power (and hers is pretty limited) but they have influence.  All the royals have status (they get some respect due simply to their birth/connection to the monarchy) and the status in many cases determines their influence.  The status suggested by HRH is based on the person’s position in the royal family tree. 

So Andrew could be a mass-murderer and still be HRH.  The title doesn’t imply he is a decent person, just that he is the son of the monarch.

I think it is nonsense to speculate that Harry will lose either the title of duke or the HRH.  He has been asked (and supposedly agreed) not to use the HRH.  (This is a reasonable request when he isn’t representing the monarchy.)  The titles are not because he is a good guy but because he is the son of the future king.

All this stuff about Archie not having a title is also nonsense.  He is Lord Archie (a courtesy title for the sons of peers) and he could also have his father’s secondary title (viscount, I believe) if Harry wanted him to use it.  He just isn’t a prince.

I completely agree about Andrews daughters.  They seem relatively decent girls (no outrageous acts or major scandals) and knowing what is said about their father must really be painful.  

 

[just_ordinary]

The finesse of titles stem back from the time when monarchs still held power. Especially when on occasion they met up. Who was allowed to enter first, who gets greeted first- those formalities were important. There is a whole set of Christian honorary titles bestowed by the pope to determine the rank of a king under kings. The honorary title „the most Christian King“ for example, was bestowed upon the french king, „Catholic King“ went to Spain, „apostolic king“ to Hungary, “most faithful” to Portugal. There was a whole system to determine what rank you were on. I mean, who holds more power- the emperor or the tsar? After every of those many wars in Europe there were treaties to be made and the rank of your monarch most definitely played a part in how the diplomats could act. It wasn’t all the winner takes it all. I think there was one where they had to dig up some honorary titles quickly, so one could safe his face while the other was placed before him in rank. I think the Monarchy of the Netherlands only came into being because they wanted a seat at the negotiating table and that was a members only club.  It seems ridiculous today. But I think we still perpetuate similar patterns at big political meetings. 
I also think the Queen does hold quite some power. There are very little laws regulating her reign but traditional customs that just aren’t questioned from either side. The British law and political discourse is indeed fascinating, and while not perfect it’s working just as well as the other European democracies (with a crowned head of state or not). Deleted a quick fangirling essay about the UK. You have been spared.

HRH and the Dukedoms of Cambridge and Sussex don’t matter in real circumstances, while Cornwall and Lancaster actually bring in money (HMTQ is the Duke of Lancaster- it’s tied to the monarch, so chances are Charles will bestow Cornwall to Wiliam rather quickly. They showed both travelling over the estate, meeting tenants and such a couple of years ago. It definitely looked as if a hand over is prepared.). But they matter insight the system. Just like job titles do in their own systems.

As things are right now publicly known, Archie and his sister are becoming HRH as soon as Charles becomes the monarch. That is the current rule. But I do believe the rule will be changed. And I do believe this has been in the works for about ten+ years. It has nothing to do with them personally. Even though the cynic in me wonders if they would have made Archie a Princess is he would have been a girl. Princesses are great PR, so they might have wanted to utilise that. He wasn’t, and yet another Prince is not helping PR wise, harsh as it sounds.

Edited May 27, 2021 by just_ordinary

[Pleiades_06]

4 hours ago, viii said:

They won't remove the HRH because they know that there would be a huge shitstorm because everybody knows Andrew deserves to lose his like... yesterday. 

I’m late to this discussion but is there even a vague possibility of this for any of them, ever? Who does the revoking? Are there any rules?

[MomJeans]

38 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

HRH and the Dukedoms of Cambridge and Sussex don’t matter in real circumstances, while Cornwall and Lancaster actually bring in money (HMTQ is the Duke of Lancaster- it’s tied to the monarch, so chances are Charles will bestow Cornwall to Wiliam rather quickly.

Actually, the moment the Queen dies --> Charles is King ---> William is the Duke of Cornwall, as the son of the monarch & heir apparent.  They may hold a formal ceremony later, but in actuality, it does not need to formalized or conferred to William. (And if Charles pre-deceases the Queen, then William will never be the Duke of Cornwall, as he would never be be the son of the Monarch, just the heir apparent,

King Charles does need to confer the title of the Prince of Wales on William though.  That title is not automatic.  

 

8 minutes ago, Pleiades_06 said:

I’m late to this discussion but is there even a vague possibility of this for any of them, ever? Who does the revoking? Are there any rules?

The Monarch can remove HRH status from anyone, through Letters Patent.  (I think the odds are extremely low that she would only do that for Harry & Megan.)

As for the Sussex Dukedom- Parliament can remove a dukedom.  This happened during World War One, with German royals who had British Dukedoms.  I believe the Monarch has to assent to such.  [Some would argue that the Monarch is free to not assent. I would argue that it would be a serious crisis if the Monarch refused to assent to an Act of Parliament.]  I can't imagine Parliament removing the Dukedom.  

**There were rumors that the Queen can remove a Dukedom via Letters Patent, without Parliament, if it's the person to whom the Queen conveyed the Dukedom to. I honesty don't know.  There isn't modern precedent that I'm aware of, but I actually follow the continental royals more than the U.K.  If you go back to Tudor times, yes, the Kings were freely giving and removing titles all the time.  The German nationals whose U.K. titles were taken away (actually removed but held in abeyance), were not the original title holders.

All this to say, IMHO:  very unlikely for the H&M to lose their HRH.  Extremely unlikely, absent a war with the U.S., that Harry loses his Dukedom.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

King Charles does need to confer the title of the Prince of Wales on William though.  That title is not automatic.  

They can pass it along if they like, but for me Owain Glyndŵr was the last true Prince of Wales.  Don't count him out just because he's been dead 600 years...he promised to come back from the grave if he's needed to restore Welsh power.  And when that happens I promise to help!

[viii]

So when Charles becomes King and William becomes the Duke of Cornwall, does he lose the dukedom of Cambridge or will he have two dukedoms? It will be so odd to refer to William as the Prince of Wales when that has been Charles for as long as I've been alive. 

[MomJeans]

2 hours ago, viii said:

So when Charles becomes King and William becomes the Duke of Cornwall, does he lose the dukedom of Cambridge or will he have two dukedoms? It will be so odd to refer to William as the Prince of Wales when that has been Charles for as long as I've been alive. 

He will have both (any many more titles!) until he becomes King.  His Cambridge Dukedom is for life, though it reverts to the crown the moment he becomes King (the Monarch is above all peerage, though the Monarch is also the Duke of Lancaster.)

In practicality, it's pretty likely, once he receives the PoW title, that will be the main way the media and his office refers to him, unless he is doing official business with the Cornwall Duchy, in which case he will be referred to as the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge. 

I agree it will be strange for Charles not to be the PoW.  He completely redefined and molded that role into something it wasn't before. People always discuss that Charles will have a short reign, but I think he will have a lasting legacy for changing the role of the heir apparent, and the management of the Cornwall Duchy. 

Edited May 27, 2021 by MomJeans

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, viii said:

So when Charles becomes King and William becomes the Duke of Cornwall, does he lose the dukedom of Cambridge or will he have two dukedoms? It will be so odd to refer to William as the Prince of Wales when that has been Charles for as long as I've been alive. 

It will be odd to have a King of England after a lifetime (or two) of a Queen.  I think it will take people a while to remember to sing “God Save the King” instead of “God Save the Queen.”  The number of people in the British Commonwealth today who remember when there was a King instead of a Queen is relatively small.

In the end though, it is not that different from remembering friends’ married names or new professional titles.  It will seem odd for a couple of years at most.

[DalmatianCat]

8 hours ago, Xanariel said:

 

I do think though that they should establish what's going to happen to Harry's kids when Charles takes the throne. They're going to be born titleless, raised outside of the UK and never carry out royal duties - there's not really a reason to have them as Prince Archie and Princess X several years down the line. It'll look pretty silly - especially with the optics of two fully American kids getting called Your Royal Highness by a population they don't even live among. 

That sounds like a Hallmark movie waiting to happen...or a real-life “Princess Diaries”!

[viii]

My grandpa remembers singing God Save the King as a small boy. He should still hopefully be here by the time Charles becomes king. 

[EmCatlyn]

44 minutes ago, viii said:

My grandpa remembers singing God Save the King as a small boy. He should still hopefully be here by the time Charles becomes king. 

Yeah, there are definitely some people still who remember, but they are relatively fewer each day.  I definitely hope your grandpa will still be around to sing God Save the King.

 

[louisa05]

@Xanariel I’m wondering what citizenship Princess Spencer Diana Doria will even have? Is British citizenship automatic for a child born abroad to a British citizen? If not, will they even bother going through whatever process to get it? And what would her status in succession be if she’s not a British citizen. There are non-citizens down the line but they’re way down—like higher than 100.  
Also will she be christened? I’m guessing not. And will that be an issue for place in succession? 
As to titles, Archie has one, the Earl of Dumbarton, his father’s subsidiary title. And Princess Rainbow Francis Diana Sparkles will have the title “lady” as the daughter of a Duke. Their choice to not use those titles for the children seems very intentional at this point: you can’t use the titles then whine that they have no titles. 

[MomJeans]

Archie's sister will automatically be both an American Citizen and a U.K. citizen.   There is no requirement that a person must be a resident of the U.K. to be in the line of succession (indeed there are several foreign royals that are in line, by their relation to Queen Victoria.)

As far as a christening, I very much think there will be some announcement that Lady Sussex was privately christened in the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., which is in communion with the Church of England.  Even if there is no christening, the requirement operates more as an "opt-out".  She would absolutely lose her position if she was baptized a Catholic; if she waits until she is an adult to formally choose her religion it appears her position would hold unless she inherited the throne and did not immediately be baptized CofE.

Practically, though, it doesn't really matter.  Lord Archie and Lady Sussex are far enough down the line that they won't be inheriting the throne. As someone who is a dual citizen, it can open up some visa opportunities for them when they are working adults, and means they need to have their U.K. passport when the enter and leave the U.K. 

 

[EmCatlyn]

Quote

Speaking to The Telegraph, [royal editor Camilla Tominey]  said: 'By continuing to stoke the flames of publicity with his smug, self-pitying and at times, spiteful rhetoric, Harry shows he has actually learned nothing from his mother's experience.'  Daily Mail -“Smug Prince Harry”

I found the use of the word “smug” for Harry interesting.  I would agree that he is a little self-righteous.  I mentioned in another post that he reminded me of someone that has recently been “saved by Jesus” who can’t stop talking about his new enlightenment.  Definitely self-righteous and convinced of his own (and Meghan’s) superior rightness.

Could we call this “smug”?  Is the “royal editor” (clearly not a Harry fan) accurate or being too harsh?

 

 

[EmCatlyn]

9 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

Archie's sister will automatically be both an American Citizen and a U.K. citizen.   There is no requirement that a person must be a resident of the U.K. to be in the line of succession (indeed there are several foreign royals that are in line, by their relation to Queen Victoria.)

As far as a christening, I very much think there will be some announcement that Lady Sussex was privately christened in the Episcopal Church of the U.S.A., which is in communion with the Church of England.  Even if there is no christening, the requirement operates more as an "opt-out".  She would absolutely lose her position if she was baptized a Catholic; if she waits until she is an adult to formally choose her religion it appears her position would hold unless she inherited the throne and did not immediately be baptized CofE.

Practically, though, it doesn't really matter.  Lord Archie and Lady Sussex are far enough down the line that they won't be inheriting the throne. As someone who is a dual citizen, it can open up some visa opportunities for them when they are working adults, and means they need to have their U.K. passport when the enter and leave the U.K. 

 

I agree that both Archie and Unborn Sister can have dual citizenship (British/USA) regardless of where they are born because they can claim each citizenship through one parent.   If Archie wanted to run for US president some day, however, there might be debate whether he qualifies as “natural born” or not.  In contrast, his sister would not have this problem. ?

Regarding religion, being baptized in the Roman Catholic Church won’t affect whether or not you can be King or Queen of England.   The rite of baptism is pretty much the same for Roman Catholics, Episcopalians/Anglicans, Lutherans, etc. and it doesn’t really matter who baptizes you.   The important thing is how you are raised and Confirmed.  If Confirmed in a denomination that doesn’t have full reciprocity with the CoE, then a prospective monarch would have to convert and essentially be Confirmed in the CoE.   (You definitely don’t get baptized again. The Anglican Communion is very clear about only one baptism being necessary.  The only time you need to be re-baptized is if you were baptized in a denomination that follows a different baptismal formula.)  

[SweetJuly]

What I have always wondered is how the BRF would handle a spouse who chooses to keep their non-Christian religious affiliation. I may have wondered about this when I contemplated my own (hypothetical) marriage to Prince William (or Harry) as a Jewish teenager...

I am not very observant, but I would not have wanted to convert, especially if I don't believe in the tenets of the Church of England. It would have felt very wrong and I would have wanted my children to be raised with a connection to Judaism - or even Jewish, as I currently do with my nominally Catholic husband. 

I imagine it would not really be an option if a Jewish person married the direct heir to the throne, but what about the second in line (Harry, Charlotte)? Would it be permissible at all? Is it imaginable a high status member of the BRF has an interfaith wedding and marriage? 

 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, SweetJuly said:

What I have always wondered is how the BRF would handle a spouse who chooses to keep their non-Christian religious affiliation. I may have wondered about this when I contemplated my own (hypothetical) marriage to Prince William (or Harry) as a Jewish teenager...

I am not very observant, but I would not have wanted to convert, especially if I don't believe in the tenets of the Church of England. It would have felt very wrong and I would have wanted my children to be raised with a connection to Judaism - or even Jewish, as I currently do with my nominally Catholic husband. 

I imagine it would not really be an option if a Jewish person married the direct heir to the throne, but what about the second in line (Harry, Charlotte)? Would it be permissible at all? Is it imaginable a high status member of the BRF has an interfaith wedding and marriage? 

 

The good news is that the British monarch has never been prevented from marrying a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist.  The only religion the spouse of the monarch could not be was Roman Catholic.  Even better news is that thanks to the most recent act of succession (2013), an English monarch can now be married to a Catholic.  So essentially, there is no official prohibition on whom the monarch marries.  https://www.channel4.com/news/british-royal-family-other-religions-same-sex-marriage

Now this doesn’t mean that the British people would be happy to have their monarch marry a Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu or Jew.  There might be pressure on the monarch or future monarch not to marry outside Protestantism or at least to make sure the future spouse converts before the wedding.  Further, a religious wedding ceremony might not be possible if either the bride or groom was not a baptized Christian.  (They could have a civil ceremony, like Charles and Camilla did, however.)

Another complication would be that the heir to the throne has to be brought up in the Church of England and can’t be a Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Zoroastrian or anything but Church of England.  If George married a Jewish girl, there might be a problem since according to Jewish law, the children of a Jewish mother are Jewish.  So the hypothetical Jewish girl would have to agree to have her child(ren) baptized and brought up in the Church of England and whatever both Christian and rabbinical authorities require to make sure the child is not counted as a Jew would have to be observed. 

For someone who is not likely to be monarch, the pressure to raise the children CoE would probably be less.  Interfaith weddings would depend on whether they could get clergy from the different faiths to participate. (Not all rabbis and not all Christian clergy will participate in interfaith weddings.  I do not know if the Church of England has an official position on this.)

Meghan did not need to be baptized within the Anglican communion to marry Harry, but she did need to be a baptized Christian to have a church wedding. Also, as a divorced woman she would have had to meet with the clergy and satisfy them that the breakdown of her marriage was not due to adultery on her part or some other sign that she didn’t take marriage seriously. (Their very publicly known adultery was why Charles and Camilla had a civil wedding ceremony.)

 

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Add about interfaith marriages.

[Anna Bolinas]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Regarding religion, being baptized in the Roman Catholic Church won’t affect whether or not you can be King or Queen of England.  

Interesting. I would've thought, since technically the Catholic Church considers anyone baptized within the church as a member for life, that a prospective king/queen of England would not be able to be baptized in a Catholic ceremony by a Catholic priest.

I, for one, think it would be mildly hilarious if they did baptize Girl Sussex as a Catholic. They won't, and it also wouldn't matter because she's never going to come within spitting distance of being queen anyway, but it would be funny. Really, they should just go whole hog. Meghan should convert back to Catholicism. Harry should convert with her. They could move to France and declare themselves king and queen based on Harry's descent from Philip IV. Invade England and start a reverse Hundred Years War Part 2 (This Time, It's Personal). Just go for it. 

[EmCatlyn]

7 minutes ago, Anna Bolinas said:

Interesting. I would've thought, since technically the Catholic Church considers anyone baptized within the church as a member for life, that a prospective king/queen of England would not be able to be baptized in a Catholic ceremony by a Catholic priest.

I, for one, think it would be mildly hilarious if they did baptize Girl Sussex as a Catholic. They won't, and it also wouldn't matter because she's never going to come within spitting distance of being queen anyway, but it would be funny. Really, they should just go whole hog. Meghan should convert back to Catholicism. Harry should convert with her. They could move to France and declare themselves king and queen based on Harry's descent from Philip IV. Invade England and start a reverse Hundred Years War Part 2 (This Time, It's Personal). Just go for it. 

Yeah, that would definitely keep the tabloids busy.

As far as the Roman Catholic baptism goes, the issue of whether a person is Anglican or Roman Catholic for the purposes of the English throne is really up to the Church of England, not the Pope.  The Church of England accepts any baptism that follows the correct procedure as valid.  It doesn’t matter who performs the ceremony if it is done right.  The RCC may claim that a person is a RCC once baptized in the RCC, but the CoE doesn’t agree. ?  

[SweetJuly]

@EmCatlyn Thank you so much for your detailed response! I imagine there is no specific prohibition for the monarch to marry a non-Christian because it was considered entirely inconceivable that this situation could arise in the first place

[just_ordinary]

@MomJeans thanks for correction. I definitely mixed them up. 
 

Regarding a non-CoE spouse: I think it will be extremely dependent on what religion affliction the spouse will have and how involved they are. There are many many people christened or brought up one way, but don’t think about it much. Traditional Christianity is much more common in the UK than real believers. Those kind of dealings are definitely to be found in other religions as well. Also many might be christened but choose not to go the next step- personally declaring their affiliation to the church when they are older (Protestants in confirmation around 13/14, RRC around 15, taking communion at age 9 is actually only so you can take part in the Eucharistie and does not make you a full fledged member). For other religions the public acceptance will depend heavily how involved someone is in their faith and what prejudices are around. A cultural Jew, Buddhist or Hindu will be no biggie. (I mean surely at first but it would happen.) Especially if they pledge to raise the child into the Christian traditions. An even only cultural Muslim probably would have more problems. But who knows, maybe we all have overcome that till George will marry his spouse. The more pressing matter is what happens if he isn’t into women? I actually can see him marrying a man (I don’t think the public as a whole will be there with trans people just yet by then) but the crown will be passed in to Charlotte and her children. No matter if he chooses to adopt or procreate via surrogate. 
Which might sound bad, but honestly I am very proud how far we have come and I have high hopes we will get even further. There will always be bigots and arseholes, but I am sure society as a whole will catch up in time so that this would be possible. 

[louisa05]

6 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

Interesting. I would've thought, since technically the Catholic Church considers anyone baptized within the church as a member for life, that a prospective king/queen of England would not be able to be baptized in a Catholic ceremony by a Catholic priest.

I, for one, think it would be mildly hilarious if they did baptize Girl Sussex as a Catholic. They won't, and it also wouldn't matter because she's never going to come within spitting distance of being queen anyway, but it would be funny. Really, they should just go whole hog. Meghan should convert back to Catholicism. Harry should convert with her. They could move to France and declare themselves king and queen based on Harry's descent from Philip IV. Invade England and start a reverse Hundred Years War Part 2 (This Time, It's Personal). Just go for it. 

Meghan was never Catholic.  She attended Catholic school but her family was not Catholic and she was not.