The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #521  
Old 03-14-2021, 07:57 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 168
If the palace intended for Harry's children to have titles, it seems to me like it would have been easiest to include him and his future offspring in the change made right before George's birth. I'd have to look up the exact wording, but if the Queen can say "All of William's children will be HRH," then she can say "All of William's and Harry's children will be HRH."

I remember reading reports that she'd left most of the negotiations about Harry's status to Charles, in recognition of the fact that the long-term consequences were going to be his problem, not hers. I don't know if that's true or not, but something similar may have happened here. Maybe she'd already made the decision about slimming down the monarchy, but I think it's also possible that she thought Charles might be on the throne by the time Harry had his first child, so she decided to leave it for him to decide in the future. But then it turned out that she was still on the throne when it happened, so she went with her own preference, which was for slimming down. Or maybe that was Charles's preference rather than her own, but she allowed him to make the decision. Regardless, all of those possibilities indicate that not giving titles to Harry's kids was at least being considered at the time of George's birth, which was well before Harry met Meghan. I don't think anyone suggesting that a long-considered plan to slim down the British monarchy should be disregarded because of bad things happened in the US in 1917 would have been taken seriously.

If Meghan can call up the Queen to ask how Philip is doing, she can call up the Queen to ask why Archie didn't get a title. And whatever else Meghan is, she's not shy about speaking up when she doesn't like something, so I find it hard to believe she never did that. Whatever the reason it, someone somewhere along the line explained it to her, probably more than once.
__________________

  #522  
Old 03-14-2021, 07:58 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by rominet09 View Post
Maybe if they had bought a smaller property instead of this enormous one, they could have afforded to pay for their security.
They have a huge mortgage. Apparently that is something the media can look up.
__________________

  #523  
Old 03-14-2021, 07:58 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
But that's not what it looks like! In today's world that's what counts. Why should it matter to the BRF how it looks to a bi-racial American? Because, The Duchess is a bi-racial American. She became a part of the "brand" she still is whether she is a working royal or not.
But Meghan and Harry's children will have HRH titles, probably before they are pre-teens. I don't think most people in today's world are wondering why Archie doesn't have a HRH but Louis does. The kids are too young for most people to care about that.
  #524  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:00 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
the security worries are absolutely very real - even if Meghan were a WASP, they would have to be concerned about his security is very high profile: Someone tried to kidnap Princess Anne, There was an IRA plot to kill Charles and Diana, et.

the argument is over who should pay for this security. My understanding is that the Prime Minister indicated that the Canadian government would pay their security. Charles gave them a few hundred pounds for seed money. Then, Canada withdrew the security. Harry got on the phone with Charles and demanded that Charles pay his security. For whatever reason, Charles declined.

So the issue isn't whether they should have security but whether Harry should dip into his mum's money (which came from Charles) to pay for it. Harry and Meghan should be grateful that they have the resources to have security. Many people all over the world have serious, legitimate concerns about their safety. Those that can't afford 24/7 security are often left to fend for themselves. It's not fair - but life isn't fair.
There are many high profile powerful executives, celebrities, musicians, etc.., that face security risks these days and find it necessary to hire their own security. Harry wanted a financially independent life in the US and he has it. He is a grown man who has never had to pay his own bills, but his decisions now require that he does. Quit the never ending lawsuits and paying astronomical legal fees and cut back on extravagant expenses and it will be a whole lot easier to afford security.
  #525  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:04 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
But Meghan and Harry's children will have HRH titles, probably before they are pre-teens. I don't think most people in today's world are wondering why Archie doesn't have a HRH but Louis does. The kids are too young for most people to care about that.
I beg to differ. The Queens death will cause a huge identity crisis in the UK. I doubt anyone will want to hear about the elevation in title of 2 American kids. I mean at the time feeling may be so high that it is felt Harry should at the very least be hidden away then.

In the long run. Sympathy with M an H won't be there.
  #526  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:06 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
I beg to differ. The Queens death will cause a huge identity crisis in the UK. I doubt anyone will want to hear about the elevation in title of 2 American kids. I mean at the time feeling may be so high that it is felt Harry should at the very least be hidden away then.

In the long run. Sympathy with M an H won't be there.
I agree but I was responding to a post that indicated that it looks bad for Harry's kids not to be HRHs. With respect to when Charles ascends, my understanding is that Harry's children will immediately be HRHs, just like Charles immediately will become king after the Queen's death. It's a nonissue now and it will be a nonissue when the time comes.
  #527  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:07 PM
texankitcat's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
But Meghan and Harry's children will have HRH titles, probably before they are pre-teens. I don't think most people in today's world are wondering why Archie doesn't have a HRH but Louis does. The kids are too young for most people to care about that.
But will they? We know Harry and Meghan will never return to Britain to live which means their children will be raised in America as Americans. What possible need would they have for HRH status titles? The US doesn’t recognize titles so they won’t be able to use them in their lives here in the US.
  #528  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:08 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I agree but I was responding to a post that indicated that it looks bad for Harry's kids not to be HRHs. With respect to when Charles ascends, my understanding is that Harry's children will immediately be HRHs, just like Charles immediately will become king after the Queen's death. It's a nonissue now and it will be a nonissue when the time comes.
In theory but it won't happen
  #529  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:09 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by texankitcat View Post
But will they? We know Harry and Meghan will never return to Britain to live which means their children will be raised in America as Americans. What possible need would they have for HRH status titles? The US doesn’t recognize titles so they won’t be able to use them in their lives here in the US.
That's hardly a fact.
  #530  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:10 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
But that's not what it looks like! In today's world that's what counts. Why should it matter to the BRF how it looks to a bi-racial American? Because, The Duchess is a bi-racial American. She became a part of the "brand" she still is whether she is a working royal or not.
Tatiana Maria just gave you a very comprehensive and detailed response with evidence that Royal Titles are not based on race (but rather on gender). You come across very badly and rude here by not even acknowledging her contribution, but rather dismissing it simply because it does not reflect your (or even Meghan's) perspective.

Please at least thank her for taking her time and effort (publicly in quoting/responding the forum or privately with the Thanks button), even if you don't agree. She is very knowledgable on Royal titles and I certainly have learned a lot from her posts, especially in Questions about British Styles and Titles thread.
  #531  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:16 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I am not familiar with Californian Law and Santa Barbara County Police, but why was the trespasser not fined, but being let off with warning after he was caught in his first attempt? Surely, he should have been fined for breaking the law by entering a person's property without permission.
I can't believe this is my first post here, but California trespassing laws are convoluted. Most of the time the police will just ask the person to leave if they're not threatening harm, creating damage or trying to occupy/claim squatters rights (and even then depending on the county you live in good luck getting them to leave with the last one) since it's a misdemeanor with a max of a few months in prison and there are loopholes if you aren't doing something that would turn it into a felony criminal charge like say the property isn't fully fenced or have signs all around it clearly static no trespassing you can fight to have charges thrown out in court.

I live in actual Hollywood - not Beverly Hills or a whole county north like H&M do - and when dealing with trespassers in the city of LA you have to complete a citizens arrest when LAPD comes or they won't do anything but ask them to leave. This is generally more hassle than it's worth since it often involves the need to go to court. If it os a pattern they take it more seriously so it's generally suggested that the police give them a warning the first time then will arrest if it happens again. However I would have assumed SBPD, especially in the Montecito area, would be a bit stricter but... clearly not.
  #532  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:16 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
They have a huge mortgage. Apparently that is something the media can look up.
Any man and his dog can file a request for Californian mortgage records.

https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/about/pra/...ageRecords.htm
  #533  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:17 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Forgive me, but I already knew and understood the LP's I'm not ignorant of the facts. I mentioned this before. Repeating them isn't educating me at all. It's not that I meant to be rude. But, Tatiana Maria missed the entire point of my imaginary scenario. In it I acknowledged that the current LP's don't discriminate on Ethnicity.
  #534  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:17 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
But that's not what it looks like! In today's world that's what counts. Why should it matter to the BRF how it looks to a bi-racial American? Because, The Duchess is a bi-racial American. She became a part of the "brand" she still is whether she is a working royal or not.
When a new employee hires into Microsoft or Amazon or Google, they agree to adhere to the way the company works. The company doesn't alter their rules and regulations because of a newly hired person that believes they should do things differently than they do. When Meghan married Harry, she also knew that she was becoming part of a 1000+ year old institution that perhaps she didn't understand because there's so many ins and outs and ups and downs and dos and don'ts that baffle even a life long British citizen.

How it *looks* isn't why the "Firm" changes up things. A Brit moving to the USA has rules and regulations to follow living and working in the US. Harry's now bound by these conventions. They're not going to change those rules for Harry because he's a British prince. It was totally up to Meghan to adapt and conform to the way the "Firm" does things and not for the "Firm" to adapt and conform to a singular person that joined the ranks of the monarchy and royal family.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #535  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:20 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
It was totally up to Meghan to adapt and conform to the way the "Firm" does things and not for the "Firm" to adapt and conform to a singular person that joined the ranks of the monarchy and royal family.
This is why "the Firm" has been in one hot mess after another for 40 years.
  #536  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:21 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
However, it isn't wrong for anyone to question them or to agree or to disagree with them. My point has always been the rational that the 'rules' cannot be changed is flawed.

Why weren't they changed for Master Archie and his future siblings? To me the obvious answer would be, 'we will not know' for some time. I can live with that.

But people should be allowed to question, agree, and disagree, as long as its done politely
You can't agree or disagree with the very basic principle of the Monarchy, and some people want to see Harry and William as equals, and they are not.
  #537  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:24 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Ester View Post
You can't agree or disagree with the very basic principle of the Monarchy, and some people want to see Harry and William as equals, and they are not.
Oh yes I can. How would giving The Sussex's children HRH's early make The Duke's equal? It wouldn't. The Duke of Sussex will still never be king. The Duke of Cambridge may be.
  #538  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:26 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Washington, United States
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
This is why "the Firm" has been in one hot mess after another for 40 years.
Given the fact that the monarchy is favored by a majority of Britons and the Queen and William enjoy high popularity ratings, I don't think it matters. The monarchy consists of human beings who are always under a microscope - there is always going to be some drama. As long as the British people - who are represented by the monarchy support it, it will survive.
  #539  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:26 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
This is why "the Firm" has been in one hot mess after another for 40 years.
So the "Firm" should have changed to meet the demands of every new person who might just be passing by?


Meghan might be biracial but if she had played fairly and admitted that she knew the rules and really accepted them - aka hitting the ground running, - no one would have thought twice about the reason Archie didn't *temporarily* have a HRH as they, indeed, didn't until she opened her mouth and told the lie. And stating that she didn't know won't wash. She did. Or she didn't want to know. For a self-proclaimed educated, smart woman she could have found it as easily as every one of us. She should have if it mattered so much to her. Or do you think she was intentionally lied to by the "men in grey"? Perhaps she should have just asked Harry. She certainly should have checked before accusing people of racism on TV.
  #540  
Old 03-14-2021, 08:26 PM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Okay this is my first real 'opinion' rather than just playing devil's advocate. Putting on my CJ Cregg hat, if I was an advisor, the minute I heard The Sussex's were expecting I'd sit down with the Queen and this would be the scene...

"Ma'am, I strongly urge you to re-write the LP's to say that starting from this birth all Great-grandchildren on the Monarch are automatically granted HRH unless specifically refused by their parents,"

"Why?" Her Majesty would reasonably ask.

"Ma'am, if you don't, someone, somewhere could and likely would say that this child isn't given it because of his ethnic makeup."

Possibly Her Majesty would say "But that's untrue, and ridiculous. The rules were made in 1917."

"That's correct ma'am. However, in 1917 people of color were lynched in the US and couldn't even use the same lavatory until the late 60's. Someone will bring it up, and the only way not to have a horse in that race, is to cancel the race. This is the world we live in now."
But that's not how the Monarchy works, there is an order to things and it can't be changed just because Archie is bi-racial
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 2: December 2020-March 2021 JessRulz Current Events Archive 874 03-07-2021 08:05 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi america american history ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism british british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doll dresses duke of sussex family tree general news thread george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! highgrove house of windsor imperial household italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery king edward vii książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg maxima meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria royal ancestry royal jewels serbian royal family speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tradition uae customs united states of america welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:57 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×