The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:36 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Like I said, Master Archie having an HRH is so outside of my life that I can't have strong feelings about it either way. I simply see why an outsider could believe its unfair to make special exception for one set of kids and not all of them. This is a 21st century mindset. I still say this interview is positively mild compared to those made by other members of the family. All the anger is disturbing.

I still fail to see what exception you are referring to. As a great-grandson of the Queen in collateral line, Archie is not eligible to become a prince now. The same rule will apply e.g. to the children of James, Viscount Severn, who will also be great-grandchildren of a sovereign in paternal line. The difference is that Archie, unlike James' future children, can still be a prince when Charles ascends the throne, as he will be a grandson of a sovereign, even though James himself and his sister Louise, who are also grandchildren of a sovereign in paternal line, just as Archie will be, do not use the HRH themselves, despite being entitled to do so.


Of course, other great-grandchildren in maternal line of the Queen, like Peter's and Zara's children, or Eugenie's and Beatrice's children/future children, are not titled either and will never be according to existing rules.


The only great-grandchildren of the Queen who are indeed treated differently (I am not sure if that could be called an "exception" though) are indeed William's children, but their situation is actually different, in a system based on hereditary succession under the rule of primogeniture, because they are in direct line to the throne. The rule of primogeniture, as foreign as that concept may be to most Americans, implies a natural hierarchy in any Royal Family and it is not unnatural, nor shocking to most Europeans that the main line and the collateral lines should be treated differently.

In a slimmed-down monarchy, you might argue that no grandchildren of the heir should be HRHs (only his/her children), which is the current rule again e.g, in the Netherlands and in Spain, but asking for the contrary, i.e. that all grandchildren of the heir be HRHs would again attractive negative reactions. In fact, as far as I know, Belgium is the only European kingdom where all grandchildren of the heir are still guaranteed to be HRHs from birth.
__________________

  #102  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:37 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Speaking of the "wedding" again I think it's entirely possible that as an American talking to another American with a primary audience of Americans she was relating an event that to her meant more emotionally then her public wedding. She never claimed it was her UK legal marriage. It would have been binding as common law in Cali, (if they haven't changed the marriage laws)
This was what I assumed from the start. I never thought she meant they'd had a previous legally binding wedding, though the point that what happened might count as a binding wedding under Californian common law is interesting and might have influenced her thinking.
__________________

__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #103  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:45 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Speaking of the "wedding" again I think it's entirely possible that as an American talking to another American with a primary audience of Americans she was relating an event that to her meant more emotionally then her public wedding. She never claimed it was her UK legal marriage. It would have been binding as common law in Cali, (if they haven't changed the marriage laws)
She didn't talk about 'the wedding' when she referenced the 'three days prior', she talked about 'getting married'. Which is clearly not what happened.

Quote:
You know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that.
  #104  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:49 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
She didn't talk about 'the wedding' when she referenced the 'three days prior', she talked about 'getting married'. Which is clearly not what happened.
I didn't have so much of a problem with that as much as I had with what followed. That is, "It was a spectacle for the world." If you wanted a private wedding that was not a spectacle, you could've saved some precious taxpayer money. No wonder people lost it over that.
  #105  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:53 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
I didn't have so much of a problem with that as much as I had with what followed. That is, "It was a spectacle for the world." If you wanted a private wedding that was not a spectacle, you could've saved some precious taxpayer money. No wonder people lost it over that.
The interview was also an unnecessary spectacle for the world. While we're at it.
  #106  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:53 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Speaking of the "wedding" again I think it's entirely possible that as an American talking to another American with a primary audience of Americans she was relating an event that to her meant more emotionally then her public wedding. She never claimed it was her UK legal marriage. It would have been binding as common law in Cali, (if they haven't changed the marriage laws)
It wasn't legally binding but even if they had done the full ceremony without witnesses but the ABC had pronounced them "married in the sight of God" he would be in big trouble with the CofE, you can't make two sets of vows before God, one just faked for the public. Which is one reason Lambeth Palace weren't talking to the media.

I'm sure she was referring to a non CofE binding ceremony where they said some personal vows to each other and Justin Welby just blessed their life together and that was more meaningful to them. That's fine, but that's not what she said. She said they "got married three days before".

It's an example of "their truth" not necessarily being factual.

Also if they had said they wanted a smaller wedding, I'm sure one could have been arranged.
  #107  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:54 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
She didn't talk about 'the wedding' when she referenced the 'three days prior', she talked about 'getting married'. Which is clearly not what happened.
Reminds me of Meredith and Derek from Grey's Anatomy and how they "got married" by writing their vows on a post-it note and had that framed above the bed in their bedroom. It meant something to them. They had a civil wedding later on. The post-it note exchange of vows although signed and dated would not have held up in a court of law but it "sealed the deal" for the two of them.

One thing now though, for sure. It's not something special and just between the two of them anymore. I really didn't see the purpose of giving out that information.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #108  
Old 03-12-2021, 04:55 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
I didn't have so much of a problem with that as much as I had with what followed. That is, "It was a spectacle for the world." If you wanted a private wedding that was not a spectacle, you could've saved some precious taxpayer money. No wonder people lost it over that.
I thought it was just me. The princess condescending on the great unwashed, is what I thought. People were so happy for them and wanted to share in their joy - now it turned out it was all a spectacle for her.



No wonder she found giving it a try so hard. I mean, it was so hard to enjoy a glorious wedding - I wouldn't have looked up to the endless string of increasingly less glamorous (as she aged and William's children matured into adulthood) talks to ill people and openings of schools so eagerly either if I could hardly stand such a spectacle.
  #109  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:01 PM
roseroyal's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Rose Bush, United States
Posts: 5,275
Osipi I’m replying to your response to my post in the other thread. I thought I had a clue how the British monarchy worked- I thought I understood British American differences - had not a clue!
  #110  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:05 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I still fail to see what exception you are referring to. As a great-grandson of the Queen in collateral line, Archie is not eligible to become a prince now. The same rule will apply e.g. to the children of James, Viscount Severn, who will also be great-grandchildren of a sovereign in paternal line. The difference is that Archie, unlike James' future children, can still be a prince when Charles ascends the throne, as he will be a grandson of a sovereign, even though James himself and his sister Louise, who are also grandchildren of a sovereign in paternal line, just as Archie will be, do not use the HRH themselves, despite being entitled to do so.


Of course, other great-grandchildren in maternal line of the Queen, like Peter's and Zara's children, or Eugenie's and Beatrice's children/future children, are not titled either and will never be according to existing rules.


The only great-grandchildren of the Queen who are indeed treated differently (I am not sure if that could be called an "exception" though) are indeed William's children, but their situation is actually different, in a system based on hereditary succession under the rule of primogeniture, because they are in direct line to the throne. The rule of primogeniture, as foreign as that concept may be to most Americans, implies a natural hierarchy in any Royal Family and it is not unnatural, nor shocking to most Europeans that the main line and the collateral lines should be treated differently.

In a slimmed-down monarchy, you might argue that no grandchildren of the heir should be HRHs (only his/her children), which is the current rule again e.g, in the Netherlands and in Spain, but asking for the contrary, i.e. that all grandchildren of the heir be HRHs would again attractive negative reactions. In fact, as far as I know, Belgium is the only European kingdom where all grandchildren of the heir are still guaranteed to be HRHs from birth.
Woah! Okay, first I'm truly sorry if I've offended you. That was not my intention whatsoever. I only meant that The Duchess of Sussex might not see why The Duke of Cambridge's Children got an HRH at birth before Prince Charles' ascension to the throne and her children do not. It seems obvious when a person studies or lives in a monarchy but she did not grow up with the same mindset. I'm not saying she is or is not correct if she feels that way. Making allowances for cultural and legal misunderstandings might be reasonable.
  #111  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:11 PM
Estel's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Somewhere, India
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moran View Post
I thought it was just me. The princess condescending on the great unwashed, is what I thought. People were so happy for them and wanted to share in their joy - now it turned out it was all a spectacle for her.



No wonder she found giving it a try so hard. I mean, it was so hard to enjoy a glorious wedding - I wouldn't have looked up to the endless string of increasingly less glamorous (as she aged and William's children matured into adulthood) talks to ill people and openings of schools so eagerly either if I could hardly stand such a spectacle.
Not just that, Harry looked so emotional during the "spectacle." Besides, if it wasn't for the spectacle, Oprah would never have happened probably.

Anyway, that left a bitter taste. They don't want to concentrate on anything good that was given to them, just the tabloids. They seemed obsessed with the Mail. Looks like they go through all the comments.
  #112  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:15 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Reminds me of Meredith and Derek from Grey's Anatomy and how they "got married" by writing their vows on a post-it note and had that framed above the bed in their bedroom. It meant something to them. They had a civil wedding later on. The post-it note exchange of vows although signed and dated would not have held up in a court of law but it "sealed the deal" for the two of them.

One thing now though, for sure. It's not something special and just between the two of them anymore. I really didn't see the purpose of giving out that information.
That's for sure! The confession to the world took the shine off their special, personal moment, didn't it! I don't know why she did that and I bet privacy-conscious Harry wasn't happy about it.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #113  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:16 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Not just that, Harry looked so emotional during the "spectacle."
Again this might be a clash of cultures. To the Duchess her backyard "Marriage" (in keeping with her California cultural outlook) sealed the deal for her. While the British Royal wedding would have had the most impact on The Duke. American USA vs. UK culture clash.
  #114  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:19 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Again this might be a clash of cultures. To the Duchess her backyard "Marriage" (in keeping with her California cultural outlook) sealed the deal for her. While the British Royal wedding would have had the most impact on The Duke. American USA vs. UK culture clash.
Also, in Harry's case, a family culture.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #115  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:22 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Woah! Okay, first I'm truly sorry if I've offended you. That was not my intention whatsoever. I only meant that The Duchess of Sussex might not see why The Duke of Cambridge's Children got an HRH at birth before Prince Charles' ascension to the throne and her children do not. It seems obvious when a person studies or lives in a monarchy but she did not grow up with the same mindset. I'm not saying she is or is not correct if she feels that way. Making allowances for cultural and legal misunderstandings might be reasonable.
She married into the family so it was up to her to make sure she would understand such rather straight-forward reasoning - it doesn't hurt to ask if she truly didn't understand; I am sure Harry could have easily explained. I am sure she would have agreed that it would be absurd that if Charlotte had been born first, she would have been a mere Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor as future Queen while her younger brother George would have been HRH Prince George of Cambridge... Someone claiming to champion women's rights would surely see the problem.

All of this applies even more if you intend to complain on television about how terrible your son's treatment was in this regard... So, imho she is fully to be blamed whether she would still be ignorant (that would be on purpose; she would not have any intention to understand as it wouldn't fit her narrative) OR if she knows how it works and why but is bent on pretending she doesn't (again that would be to advance her narrative - which is disingenuous).
  #116  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:26 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Again this might be a clash of cultures. To the Duchess her backyard "Marriage" (in keeping with her California cultural outlook) sealed the deal for her. While the British Royal wedding would have had the most impact on The Duke. American USA vs. UK culture clash.
With all due respect, culture shock is not an excuse for taking global media-level shots at the biggest cultural institution of the other culture. As other people have said, had Meghan spent six weeks as a poster here, she would have been well-informed about what she was getting into.

How is it excusable to marry into another culture and take on a job at such a high level and not have the proper information about where you're going and how to do it? What kind of actress takes a role with no research or sense of the character?
  #117  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Woah! Okay, first I'm truly sorry if I've offended you. That was not my intention whatsoever. I only meant that The Duchess of Sussex might not see why The Duke of Cambridge's Children got an HRH at birth before Prince Charles' ascension to the throne and her children do not. It seems obvious when a person studies or lives in a monarchy but she did not grow up with the same mindset. I'm not saying she is or is not correct if she feels that way. Making allowances for cultural and legal misunderstandings might be reasonable.
A fair point but Harry understood it all and should have explained it.
  #118  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:28 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Grottoes, United States
Posts: 73
Yes, she married into the family. However, even a Royal family doesn't have the right to strip it's members of their culture and beliefs. I am not saying they owe others any changes. However, having been in the business of dealing with people from all over the world and all walks of life since Victoria and onward they shouldn't be shocked that conflicts can and do happen.
  #119  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:31 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Woah! Okay, first I'm truly sorry if I've offended you. That was not my intention whatsoever. I only meant that The Duchess of Sussex might not see why The Duke of Cambridge's Children got an HRH at birth before Prince Charles' ascension to the throne and her children do not. It seems obvious when a person studies or lives in a monarchy but she did not grow up with the same mindset. I'm not saying she is or is not correct if she feels that way. Making allowances for cultural and legal misunderstandings might be reasonable.
It was already a done deal by the time Meghan came on the scene and it's very possible that there was no reason for the why everything changed for the Cambridge kids would have come up in a casual conversation.

The Succession to the Crown Act (2013) amended the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement to end the system of male primogeniture, under which a younger son can displace an elder daughter in the line of succession. The Act applies to those born after 28 October 2011.

Under the standing LPs, only the first *male* child of the heir to the heir would be eligible for the title HRH Prince. What if George had been a Georgina? She wouldn't have been titled under the existing LPs. George coming as the second child would have been titled simply because he's the first *male* child.

So, they implemented that the rule would be that the heir apparent of the heir to the heir to the throne would be the first child born regardless of sex. It's to put the LPs in correlation with the changes to the Act of Succession to the Crown. It wasn't because of the Cambridge children being "more special" but because of a change in an old rule that had been modified according to the times and more "equal rights" between men and women. It was a necessity to do.

Hereditary peerage titles like the Duke of Sussex still, for the most part, still carry the remainder that only the first born *male* would inherit the title. So if Harry and Meghan had a girl first and Archie second, it would be Archie that inherits Harry's ducal title.

Confused yet? It takes a while to wrap one's mind around these things. Ask me how I know.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #120  
Old 03-12-2021, 05:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by KrissyM View Post
Yes, she married into the family. However, even a Royal family doesn't have the right to strip it's members of their culture and beliefs. I am not saying they owe others any changes. However, having been in the business of dealing with people from all over the world and all walks of life since Victoria and onward they shouldn't be shocked that conflicts can and do happen.
I am not sure what you are saying , what culture and belief. Who was stripped of what
__________________

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 archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs daisy doge of venice doll duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style george vi gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume highgrove jack brooksbank jewellery king edward vii king willem-alexander książ castle line of succession list of rulers meghan markle mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince constantijn prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess chulabhorn walailak princess dita princess ribha queen consort queen louise queen maxima queen victoria royal ancestry spain speech suthida taiwan thailand unfinished portrait united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:58 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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