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

[louisa05]

9 hours 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. 

 

Is UK citizenship automatic for child born abroad though? If it requires paperwork I could see the Sussexes thinking they’re above that. Obviously, the child could acquire it as an adult if they neglect the formalities. I’m just saying I could see them intentionally doing that or unintentionally neglecting to do it. As for the line of succession, I did point out that there are non-citizens in it. I know that. But they’re not born in the top ten. 

[MomJeans]

31 minutes ago, louisa05 said:

Is UK citizenship automatic for child born abroad though? If it requires paperwork I could see the Sussexes thinking they’re above that. Obviously, the child could acquire it as an adult if they neglect the formalities. I’m just saying I could see them intentionally doing that or unintentionally neglecting to do it. As for the line of succession, I did point out that there are non-citizens in it. I know that. But they’re not born in the top ten. 

There is paperwork - otherwise how would the U.K. legally know the child exists? ? But it's very simple and if Harry doesn't fill it out, Lady Sussex can in the future.  I guess it doesn't really matter, unless she wants to work in the U.K. in the future (before Brexit, my U.K. citizenship was more valuable, tbh).  It simply doesn't affect her place in the succession. (I am not a fan of her parents at the moment, but the laws on succession are clear, and her parents' actions are not hers.)  

Legally though, as family member found out a few years ago during a top secret clearance evaluation, the U.S. at least considers the citizenship automatic, even if the paperwork was not completed. (I know that doesn't speak to how the U.K. views it.)

Actually, Archie and his sister are not the only grandchildren (re Sussex:  future grandchildren) of European monarchs living in the U.S.  Princess Madeleine of Sweden is currently living in Florida with her family (three kids), and her father is the current King of Sweden.  Sweden has different laws on succession though, and there is debate on whether her kids are still in line, as they are not "educated" in Sweden.

 

[louisa05]

6 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

There is paperwork - otherwise how would the U.K. legally know the child exists? ? But it's very simple and if Harry doesn't fill it out, Lady Sussex can in the future.  I guess it doesn't really matter, unless she wants to work in the U.K. in the future (before Brexit, my U.K. citizenship was more valuable, tbh).  It simply doesn't affect her place in the succession. (I am not a fan of her parents at the moment, but the laws on succession are clear, and her parents' actions are not hers.)  

Legally though, as family member found out a few years ago during a top secret clearance evaluation, the U.S. at least considers the citizenship automatic, even if the paperwork was not completed. (I know that doesn't speak to how the U.K. views it.)

Actually, Archie and his sister are not the only grandchildren (re Sussex:  future grandchildren) of European monarchs living in the U.S.  Princess Madeleine of Sweden is currently living in Florida with her family (three kids), and her father is the current King of Sweden.  Sweden has different laws on succession though, and there is debate on whether her kids are still in line, as they are not "educated" in Sweden.

 

I was aware of the Swedish royals living here. That’s a far different situation. 

[just_ordinary]

I think the question in Sweden is still open. I am not sure if “educated in Sweden” is actually defined properly. Would only middle school count? Or only graduating (after a transfer quickly before the graduation?). Would it have to be elementary too. Is there a set age children have to be schooled that needs to be fulfilled (for example in some countries it’s regulated children need to be schooled class 1-9) or a time frame that would be the same for the definition? I guess they won’t touch that question as the chances of those children ever coming near the throne a pretty slim. They are on rank 10+. They have just reduced the number of full time royals to the family of the immediate heir. 

[viii]

12 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.   

I am fairly certain it does. A baptized Roman Catholic can not be King or Queen of the Church of England... that is the whole point of CoE. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

39 minutes ago, viii said:

I am fairly certain it does. A baptized Roman Catholic can not be King or Queen of the Church of England... that is the whole point of CoE. 

They apparently changed that in 2013.

2013,  So 8 years ago they took the blatant bigotry off the books.  Not 1813.  Not 1913 but 8 years ago.  I still don't understand how this institution that bases elitism on nothing but birth and birth order is supported by anyone.  

[anjulibai]

45 minutes ago, viii said:

I am fairly certain it does. A baptized Roman Catholic can not be King or Queen of the Church of England... that is the whole point of CoE. 

That's a confirmed Roman Catholic, not a baptized one. As far as I'm aware, they make a distinction, as one is a choice and one usually is not. 

[MomJeans]

2 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

I think the question in Sweden is still open. I am not sure if “educated in Sweden” is actually defined properly. Would only middle school count? Or only graduating (after a transfer quickly before the graduation?). Would it have to be elementary too. Is there a set age children have to be schooled that needs to be fulfilled (for example in some countries it’s regulated children need to be schooled class 1-9) or a time frame that would be the same for the definition? I guess they won’t touch that question as the chances of those children ever coming near the throne a pretty slim. They are on rank 10+. They have just reduced the number of full time royals to the family of the immediate heir. 

Yup, there is no definition. Hence the debate. Some argue it means their entire education, others argue that it could be just mean some education. 

When Madeleine's first child was born, it was potentially an issue because her daughter was, at the time, only the second grandchild of the king.  Now, it just will never matter, and IMHO, I don't see Madeleine seeking legal clarification over an non-issue. 

[Interestingly, both the U.K. and the current Swedish monarchy descend from from foreigners; if being born in the U.K., or educated in Sweden, were requirements back in the day, these kids' royal ancestors would not have met those qualifications.]

To bring it back to the Sussex children.  Though they will never be on the throne, it's very likely that Archie and his sister will need permission from the monarch to marry (or their children will not be in the line of succession.) Currently, the first six in line to the throne need the monarch's permission.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, MomJeans said:

Though they will never be on the throne, it's very likely that Archie and his sister will need permission from the monarch to marry (or their children will not be in the line of succession.) Currently, the first six in line to the throne need the monarch's permission.  

When fundies do this everyone is up in arms because it's pathologically controlling and ridiculous.  Any chance Charles will change this when he becomes king as a nod to his decedents being actual people and not placeholders?

[viii]

8 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

They apparently changed that in 2013.

2013,  So 8 years ago they took the blatant bigotry off the books.  Not 1813.  Not 1913 but 8 years ago.  I still don't understand how this institution that bases elitism on nothing but birth and birth order is supported by anyone.  

Oooh okay. I thought they changed the succession order so it didn't matter if a boy or girl was born. I didn't realize they also changed the religious aspects of it. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, viii said:

Oooh okay. I thought they changed the succession order so it didn't matter if a boy or girl was born. I didn't realize they also changed the religious aspects of it. 

It only took them 486 years to get the blatant bigotry off the books.  

[EmCatlyn]

55 minutes ago, viii said:

I am fairly certain it does. A baptized Roman Catholic can not be King or Queen of the Church of England... that is the whole point of CoE. 

Being baptized in the RCC is not the issue.  As I have tried to explain, the CoE accepts RoC baptism as valid and this baptism does not imply that the person is RC.  The issue for being considered CoE would be whether or not you were educated in the faith/doctrine and confirmed. 

Most Christian churches that practice infant baptism give a lot of weight to confirmation.  Baptism just makes you Christian. Confirmation affirms that you understand and will follow the type of Christianity that the specific church follows.

You are right that the King or Queen of England has to be a practicing Anglican, but it doesn’t matter where s/he was baptized.

25 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

They apparently changed that in 2013.

2013,  So 8 years ago they took the blatant bigotry off the books.  Not 1813.  Not 1913 but 8 years ago.  I still don't understand how this institution that bases elitism on nothing but birth and birth order is supported by anyone.  

Actually, the change affected whom the Sovereign married, not what religion the King/Queen is.   The rule was the KoE or QoE couldn’t marry a Roman Catholic.  This goes back to politics (not religion) and is connected with how the Stuarts were replaced by the Georges back in the 18th century.  Agree it was absurd, especially since monarch wasn’t prohibited from marrying other religions. (Even so, I believe Phillip converted from Orthodox to Anglican before marrying Elizabeth.)

The King/Queen of England still has to be Church of England because s/he is head of the church.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

28 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Actually, the change affected whom the Sovereign married, not what religion the King/Queen is.   The rule was the KoE or QoE couldn’t marry a Roman Catholic.  This goes back to politics (not religion) and is connected with how the Stuarts were replaced by the Georges back in the 18th century.  Agree it was absurd, especially since monarch wasn’t prohibited from marrying other religions. (Even so, I believe Phillip converted from Orthodox to Anglican before marrying Elizabeth.)

The King/Queen of England still has to be Church of England because s/he is head of the church.

I'm familiar with the history and not just because of my weird posthumous crush on Charles II.   

[MomJeans]

Just now, HerNameIsBuffy said:

When fundies do this everyone is up in arms because it's pathologically controlling and ridiculous.  Any chance Charles will change this when he becomes king as a nod to his decedents being actual people and not placeholders?

I don't see Charles asking Parliament to change it.  To be clear, the monarch cannot make these changes (the Queen is really not as powerful as people seem to believe).  Parliament must do so, and if the U.K. citizens want it to change, they can certainly lobby their politicians!  

It was recently changed, by an Act of Parliament, to reduce it only to the first six in line (used to be many more). Thus it's likely not a pressing issue for Charles, but certainly, if people lobbied for a change, I don't see Charles opposing it.  (Indeed, it would be a serious issue if the monarch refused to assent to an Act of Parliament.)

You can absolutely marry without the monarch's position- there are morganatic marriages in the royal family's history as well.  No one will stop you.  It's just, without permission, your descendants won't be in line to the crown, like the rest of us commoners.  

There may be a future member of the royal family who purposefully does not want their kids in the line of succession.  It may be that Archie simply won't care to ask for permission, or (more likely) his grandfather or uncle grants permission even without a request to do so. 

(Since it was the English Bill of Rights that banned Catholic Monarchs and Consorts, which subsequently established the Constitutional monarchy in the U.K., it was always in Parliament's power to change it.  As you know, James II was the last Catholic monarch and many theorize that he would have kept the throne, and we could have had more Catholic monarchs since, if James II hadn't purposefully interfered with the CofE when he was King. Even his sympathizers at the time did not understand why he did so, given the risk.  Personally, though, I think William of Orange would have invaded anyway, and the Bill of Rights would likely have been the same.)

 

 

[EmCatlyn]

26 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I'm familiar with the history and not just because of my weird posthumous crush on Charles II.   

Ha!  Yeah, it’s interesting history.  Anti-Catholic paranoia is still with us in some form, but the rule against the monarch marrying a Catholic was definitely out dated once the political reasons became moot.  I think they just hadn’t bothered to change it, but threw in the reform along with making the inheritance less sexist.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

I don't see Charles asking Parliament to change it.  To be clear, the monarch cannot make these changes (the Queen is really not as powerful as people seem to believe).  Parliament must do so, and if the U.K. citizens want it to change, they can certainly lobby their politicians!  

It was recently changed, by an Act of Parliament, to reduce it only to the first six in line (used to be many more). Thus it's likely not a pressing issue for Charles, but certainly, if people lobbied for a change, I don't see Charles opposing it.  (Indeed, it would be a serious issue if the monarch refused to assent to an Act of Parliament.)

You can absolutely marry without the monarch's position- there are morganatic marriages in the royal family's history as well.  No one will stop you.  It's just, without permission, your descendants won't be in line to the crown, like the rest of us commoners.  

There may be a future member of the royal family who purposefully does not want their kids in the line of succession.  It may be that Archie simply won't care to ask for permission, or (more likely) his grandfather or uncle grants permission even without a request to do so. 

(Since it was the English Bill of Rights that banned Catholic Monarchs and Consorts, which subsequently established the Constitutional monarchy in the U.K., it was always in Parliament's power to change it.  As you know, James II was the last Catholic monarch and many theorize that he would have kept the throne, and we could have had more Catholic monarchs since, if James II hadn't purposefully interfered with the CofE when he was King. Even his sympathizers at the time did not understand why he did so, given the risk.  Personally, though, I think William of Orange would have invaded anyway, and the Bill of Rights would likely have been the same.)

 

 

If this stuff needs to go through parliament than the separation of monarchy and politics isn’t as clean as portrayed by many monarchists.

[Xanariel]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

If this stuff needs to go through parliament than the separation of monarchy and politics isn’t as clean as portrayed by many monarchists.

...The monarch is the head of state. Of course any changes around the succession are going to involve Parliament, the political body of the state. The monarchy ceded ground over the centuries and Parliament gained, to the point where making any major changes to the legal framework of succession is going to require ratification by the UK's law-makers, just as any major changes to the UK's independent courts will generally come through statutory legislation.

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Ha!  Yeah, it’s interesting history.  Anti-Catholic paranoia is still with us in some form, but the rule against the monarch marrying a Catholic was definitely out dated once the political reasons became moot.  I think they just hadn’t bothered to change it, but threw in the reform along with making the inheritance less sexist.

I definitely think that the change to the laws about Catholics wouldn't have been possible without the Good Friday Agreement and the decade to soften the wounds (on the mainland at least). 

Interestingly, the changing of the laws also corresponded with the Letters Patent that were issued to let William's children (particularly his daughters) carry princely titles. Notably, the Letters specified this was just for the eldest son, not the Prince of Wales' children in general - so Harry's hypothetical descendents didn't seem to be pictured as titled, working royals even in 2013.

Edited May 28, 2021 by Xanariel

[just_ordinary]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

If this stuff needs to go through parliament than the separation of monarchy and politics isn’t as clean as portrayed by many monarchists.

I would say the complete opposite it true. The fact, that the crown can not act arbitrarily and therefore influence the Head of State position is preventing despotism. I am always surprised how much power some “democracies” are willing to accumulate in one position and thereby effectively cutting the power of the elected officials. Some look as democratic as the China or Russia.  The separation between State and Crown is pretty one sided. The Crown is not to interfere with the elected powers but they have definitely the right to change guidelines in which the Crown can exist and act.

[MomJeans]

The monarch is expected to be neutral, which though similar, is not apolitical. For example, the Queen is expected to meet with the Prime Minister, and recognize the PM and Parliament. She serves the government. 

It's funny, because as a dual citizen I've always leaned more "American" in my political science beliefs, despite living in both countries.  (Perhaps that's why I didn't follow the British Royals as much as other royals when I was younger.)  But then Trump was elected and I found a new and fervent appreciation in having a Head of State that was neutral and dignified.  My father always told me as I got older I would appreciate the monarchy more.  I hate it when he's right.  ?  JMHO. ?

And Xanariel is right- a lot of us assumed that the changes made to succession, and the letters patent that accompanied it, meant that it was settled that Harry's future children would not be HRH status.  (This was WAY before he met Megan.)  I'm still baffled by the assertion that Megan believed her children had a right to the status, especially as letters patent are public and quite clear. TBH, I actually made a big deal about how forward thinking H & M were when Archie was born, and assumed they knew and condoned not giving Archie a HRH status, as they themselves referred to Archie as "Master Archie" and not as the Earl of Dumbarton, which is his courtesy title.  Anne's children have no title or status, and Zara has publicly stated that it was for the best.  I personally think Harry has been dishonest with Megan about things that were discussed before he met her. 

[Ozlsn]

41 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

I personally think Harry has been dishonest with Megan about things that were discussed before he met her. 

I don't know if dishonest is the right word exactly. I suspect Harry didn't really think about it until Archie was born, and it became an issue then for him because of sibling rivalry and Harry's own unresolved problems. (I also wonder if Harry actually realised that that was what the 2013 Act said, or whether he blithely continued onward assuming it was about gender and Catholics and assuming other things remained the same). 

1 hour ago, just_ordinary said:

I am always surprised how much power some “democracies” are willing to accumulate in one position and thereby effectively cutting the power of the elected officials.

This has always been a stumbling block for referendums about becoming a republic here too. We look at the US and think we'll end up with some cricketer as President - that and no one can agree on a model of Republic that we're all happy with. So we have our own weird system where our ultimate Head of State is still QEII, despite the fact she has no power here whatsoever, and even the GG's power is pretty disputed (despite The Dismissal). There was a proposal by some actual monarchists to bring Harry over as Head of State, and pretty much everyone went "yeah... Nah." Dodged a bullet on that one. 

[EmCatlyn]

Just to clarify, since some of us may be confusing or conflating the two, the “Letters Patent” of 2012 and the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 are two different things.  

The “Letters Patent” came from the Queen and they basically said that not only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be a prince/royal highness but that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be princes/princesses /rhs.  

The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 came from Parliament and it made male and female equal within the order of succession and also removed the prohibition against the monarch marrying a Catholic. 

Both the act and the letters patent are indications of the direction the monarchy is moving: less sexism in the inheritance laws and a more streamlined (and less sexist) approach to titles.  

As other have pointed out, the Queen did not include “all the grandchildren of the Prince of Wales” in the letters patent as she very well could have if she wanted Harry’s then hypothetical children to become princes and princesses before Charles became king.  

As things are now, Harry’s children will become royal highnesses when Charles becomes king, because they would be grandchildren of the monarch.  (There is talk that this will be changed now that Harry is no longer in the UK.  To change it, I believe there would need be a new letters patent, either from Elizabeth or Charles.)

Harry may have assumed that when his children were born his grandmother would make them royal highnesses, but there is no reason for him to assumed that.  It is also possible that he really didn’t care one way or the other about the HRH title until Meghan made it clear that she wanted her children to be princes and princesses. 

I have to say that it doesn’t make sense for Harry to claim he wanted “out” from the BRH before Meghan but to be so preoccupied with the title his children would/would not have.

Edited May 28, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Weird spaces

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, MomJeans said:

... TBH, I actually made a big deal about how forward thinking H & M were when Archie was born, and assumed they knew and condoned not giving Archie a HRH status, as they themselves referred to Archie as "Master Archie" and not as the Earl of Dumbarton, which is his courtesy title.    ...

I too gave Meghan and Harry credit they clearly didn’t deserve for not using a title for Archie.  (Master Archie instead of Lord Archie or Young Dumbarton.)  I thought they were being progressive and democratic.   Now it seems they were just sore because Archie wasn’t made a prince. ?

So instead of “We don’t want our kid to be set apart by a title, it seems their position was, “If he can’t be a prince, we don’t want him to be anything.” ?

In any case, it sounds like either Meghan and Harry didn’t communicate about what title their kids might have, or Harry didn’t explain things to Meghan the way he should, or Harry unrealistically thought he could get his grandmother to make his kids HRHs when he realized how important it was to Meghan.

[Xanariel]

21 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Just to clarify, since some of us may be confusing or conflating the two, the “Letters Patent” of 2012 and the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 are two different things.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, I should have clarified in my comment that these were two different things, though essentially prompted by the same issue - the Cambridges' marriage and then announcement of their pregnancy.

Interestingly enough, both display two things to me - first of all, the belated attempt at gender equality (the Letters Patent in particular seemed to be trying to avoid the embarrassing scenario of a firstborn girl being a mere Lady when her younger brother was titled as a prince). Secondly, that the BRF are quite slow to actually put changes in writing until the problem kicks them in the rear. This potential issue of William's daughter was foreseeable decades in advance, but they only did something when the baby was already gestating. I think this tendency to drag their feet is what really bit them in the rear with Harry, because a lot of mess would have been avoided if they publicly stated their intentions years ago instead of merely implying. 

I don't think Harry deliberately lied to Meghan. I think it was a combination of him being a little too self-absorbed to look at his cousins and see the roles and privileges he was afforded when they were not, and realise that the same would apply to his own kids, and a belief that he would be able to get exceptions applied to his own family. 

One factor that might be worth considering is Andrew. There are some pretty strong similarities in some aspects - dashing young war hero with a fun wife, seen as the more relaxed and down-to-earth couple compared to his stuffy brother and polished wife, a fangirl following that would have put his eventual nephews' to shame. Andrew managed to get a lot swung for him and his kids that other royals didn't, particularly regarding titles and the initial security coverage. This appeared to be due to a combination of his close relationship with the Queen and his unerring ability to throw tantrums until he got his way. 

Harry may well have thought he'd be able to similarly push for concessions for his own family, without necessarily seeing that Charles wasn't the Queen, and what a second son could secure in the 1980s wasn't what one could get in the 2020s.

Certainly the infamous "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets" seems to suggest that Harry felt that a raging tantrum would be sufficient to get him what even William and Kate did not. 

[MomJeans]

I do criticize the Queen for not being more proactive on the status and title issue, long before Harry married.

Whatever was intended, or not intended, a simple press release in 2013 could have prevented a lot of issues down the road. Hindsight is always 20/20 of course.

As it stands now, most people are in agreement that the 1917 Letters Patent, unless changed, will give Archie and Lady Sussex both Prince & Princess titles, and HRH status, when Charles is King. (There is a minority opinion that in fact that would have only been true if Charles was King when they were born.  I'm not not trying to advocate either way, but it appears the majority opinion is correct, or a younger sibling could have Prince/Princess status, but not an older sibling.)

Personally, as someone who unabashedly advocated for a complete overall prior to Harry & Megan & Oprah, the recent discord may just be the final push to get the overhaul moving.  

I really do like Beatrice, and I have no issue with Eugenie, but it's simply not right that they have HRH status, but do not work for the monarchy. (Heck, personally, I would have no problem with Beatrice being a full-time royal, but I think it's clear that that will never happen.)

I'm fine with no current titles being removed (that is most definitely an immovable position of the Queen) for current Prince/Princesses, but HRH status, IMHO, needs to be clearly and unequivocally reserved for those who are currently working full-time for the monarchy, or retired after a lifetime of respectable service (i.e. not Andrew). 

I don't personally think William's kids should have HRH status as children, but I can see that being a bridge too far for Elizabeth and Charles.  Honestly, it would be better for George's younger siblings if it was something they only gained after agreeing as adults to be full-time royals, rather than lost for going their own way. It makes their future more of a choice between two roads, and not a straight road with a possible detour.  No one bows and curtsies to kids anyway, and it doesn't establish police protection, so the kids simply don't need it.  

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Xanariel said:

Yep, I should have clarified in my comment that these were two different things, though essentially prompted by the same issue - the Cambridges' marriage and then announcement of their pregnancy.

Interestingly enough, both display two things to me - first of all, the belated attempt at gender equality (the Letters Patent in particular seemed to be trying to avoid the embarrassing scenario of a firstborn girl being a mere Lady when her younger brother was titled as a prince). Secondly, that the BRF are quite slow to actually put changes in writing until the problem kicks them in the rear. This potential issue of William's daughter was foreseeable decades in advance, but they only did something when the baby was already gestating. I think this tendency to drag their feet is what really bit them in the rear with Harry, because a lot of mess would have been avoided if they publicly stated their intentions years ago instead of merely implying. 

I don't think Harry deliberately lied to Meghan. I think it was a combination of him being a little too self-absorbed to look at his cousins and see the roles and privileges he was afforded when they were not, and realise that the same would apply to his own kids, and a belief that he would be able to get exceptions applied to his own family. 

One factor that might be worth considering is Andrew. There are some pretty strong similarities in some aspects - dashing young war hero with a fun wife, seen as the more relaxed and down-to-earth couple compared to his stuffy brother and polished wife, a fangirl following that would have put his eventual nephews' to shame. Andrew managed to get a lot swung for him and his kids that other royals didn't, particularly regarding titles and the initial security coverage. This appeared to be due to a combination of his close relationship with the Queen and his unerring ability to throw tantrums until he got his way. 

Harry may well have thought he'd be able to similarly push for concessions for his own family, without necessarily seeing that Charles wasn't the Queen, and what a second son could secure in the 1980s wasn't what one could get in the 2020s.

Certainly the infamous "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets" seems to suggest that Harry felt that a raging tantrum would be sufficient to get him what even William and Kate did not. 

I haven’t followed the royals much (I think I got interested in Megxit only because of the pandemic) so I didn’t know about Andrew getting more than his siblings because he was more demanding.  I had assumed his daughters were HRHs as granddaughters of the monarch, and that Anne and Edward had simply turned down titles for their kids.

I think you may be right about Harry and tantrums.

What I still don’t get, if Harry really hated being royal that much, why did he want Archie to be a prince?   

50 minutes ago, MomJeans said:

I do criticize the Queen for not being more proactive on the status and title issue, long before Harry married.

Whatever was intended, or not intended, a simple press release in 2013 could have prevented a lot of issues down the road. Hindsight is always 20/20 of course.

As it stands now, most people are in agreement that the 1917 Letters Patent, unless changed, will give Archie and Lady Sussex both Prince & Princess titles, and HRH status, when Charles is King. (There is a minority opinion that in fact that would have only been true if Charles was King when they were born.  I'm not not trying to advocate either way, but it appears the majority opinion is correct, or a younger sibling could have Prince/Princess status, but not an older sibling.)

Personally, as someone who unabashedly advocated for a complete overall prior to Harry & Megan & Oprah, the recent discord may just be the final push to get the overhaul moving.  

I really do like Beatrice, and I have no issue with Eugenie, but it's simply not right that they have HRH status, but do not work for the monarchy. (Heck, personally, I would have no problem with Beatrice being a full-time royal, but I think it's clear that that will never happen.)

I'm fine with no current titles being removed (that is most definitely an immovable position of the Queen) for current Prince/Princesses, but HRH status, IMHO, needs to be clearly and unequivocally reserved for those who are currently working full-time for the monarchy, or retired after a lifetime of respectable service (i.e. not Andrew). 

I don't personally think William's kids should have HRH status as children, but I can see that being a bridge too far for Elizabeth and Charles.  Honestly, it would be better for George's younger siblings if it was something they only gained after agreeing as adults to be full-time royals, rather than lost for going their own way. It makes their future more of a choice between two roads, and not a straight road with a possible detour.  No one bows and curtsies to kids anyway, and it doesn't establish police protection, so the kids simply don't need it.  

I don’t think the HRH title is supposed to be connected to whether someone is a working royal or not.  The title doesn’t come with a salary or even security, so it really just reflects how the monarch wants different members of the family viewed.   I think making all the Cambridge kids HRH was in keeping with emphasizing that William will be king one day.  It doesn’t hurt to have cute little princes and princesses around. ??‍♀️

Edited May 29, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Fix