The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #481  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:15 PM
CrownPrincessJava's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ,, Australia
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
You might be shocked to learn that the British Royal Family does not care about what us non-Brits think.
You'd be surprised how much they do. Because if they didn't, The Firm wouldn't have released a statement. Most Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth countries have a soft spot of QEII. But when she is gone, it is a completely different matter.
__________________

  #482  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:16 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 530
If what she said here in 2019 is true, I wonder how she found out about the Press writing mean, nasty things about https://mobile.twitter.com/itvnews/s...62977618132992
__________________

  #483  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:20 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.
So let's suppose that Charles gives in and pays for security for the whole family in California and continues to pay Harry and Meghan an "allowance" for their life in LA. The next thing is an exclusive nursery school for Archie (and his sister), then private school tuition, university tuition -- ah but Archie wants to be a doctor, so then there's medical school and a private practice. And then when the kiddos decide to leave the nest, they will both expect a mansion like the one they've become accustomed to, and on and on.

Where do you draw the line?

Ya know, as a parent, one of the most valuable – and hardest – things I can give to my children is freedom – the freedom to fail. To provide for their every want or whim, or to soften the landing for their less-than-stellar choices will do neither I nor them any favors. In these circumstances, what my children believe or what they want matters not at all. What does matter is that they learn the value of what they have, the sacrifices that were made to provide it, and have the utmost appreciation for those that sacrificed. I see none of that with Harry. He not only wants to have his cake and eat it, but he also wants the whole bakery! His primary concern – I daresay his ONLY concern – is himself. He doesn’t appreciate his father, except as his personal ATM; he doesn’t appreciate his family, since they don’t fawn over his every move; and he certainly doesn’t appreciate the British people, who through their taxes (on their hard-earned paychecks) paid for the security that he enjoyed until last year. The “respect” that he believes he is due is a figment of his imagination. That level of respect is earned, and he spent his last bit of currency long before doing this interview.

So to Charles, I say “Good on you!”. To Harry, “Grow up!”
  #484  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:21 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
This is where I am interested. I interpret that as Prince Edward's children, who are, or at least one is under-aged, currently receive protection until their 18th birthday. This protection may be RPO or sponsored via the Queen from the Duchy of Lancaster.

If this is the case, I completely understand why Meghan is beside herself regarding security for Archie. Technically, Louise and James are HRH Princess and Prince of Wessex, as stated by Sophie in an article last year. So, this makes sense in regards that without a HRH and princely title, Archie would not receive protection, which was reported as the case when the Sussex family went to Africa.

I truly, truly, truly hope this isn't the case. Because if so....

Going back to Lady Louise Windsor and Viscount Severn's security, it's really quite hard to tell if they have personal protection and let alone if it's private paid or publicly funded, when they are hardly seen in public (apart from Trooping of the Colours, church services or other public events, which are already provided with security). Lady Louise in particular has not been seen by herself, let alone outside palace/castle ground. I guess when the Wessex children are accompanied by their parents during official duty, The Earl and Countess of Wessex's security (funded by taxpayer) would protect them (E.g. South Africa tour in 2015, Great British Beach Clean in 2020, Bristol Zoo in 2019, Sophie and Louise at Haslar Marina in 2018).

In terms of travelling to and from school, I'm not quite sure if Louise and James are provided with security (let alone whether it's public funded or privately paid). And since Sandringham and Balmoral (privately owned not Crown Estate) are quite secured, I don't think there is a need of security for the Wessex children (for horse riding and carriage driving, especially when their coaches/trainers are next to them). There is probably no security protection for other family events that are not part of royal engagement (E.g. Weekend Fair and horse show with the Tindalls and Phillips family).

P.s. I bet the media/tabloid is very upset that Lady Louise Windsor is not a party girl or a wild child, but more interested in horses and other outdoor activities. In other words, the media couldn't make any stories about her, apart from comments her love of sports
  #485  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.
Well Queen Zara all the way then if we aren't caring about the line of succession then

The big problem here is people are connecting two different events that happened a long time apart - the Queen made William's children HRH Prince/Princess because those LP you don't want us to mention are the law for titles in effect and they stipulated that if Catherine had given birth to a girl first then she wouldn't have had any HRH or Princess title but if they had then gone on to have a son he would have been HRH Prince XYZ - it seems the Queen was simply making it fair for all of William's children. You have to remember that huge part in this decision is that W&K And their children are the very future of the RF - their future was mapped out (though these events with H&M show one can't assume the children of an heir will stay working within the RF).
Honestly I think the Queen did them a favour not intervening to give Archie titles (and she would have had to purposely intervene as he wasn't entitled to any under law - yet), remember this is the same Queen who has seen her daughter speak out about how glad she was her children didn't have titles and one of her son's actively choose not to use the full titles his children were entitled to so they could grow up more normally. The Queen also knew in time Archie would become HRH Prince but by then his parents may have had a good think about his future and what they want for him and may decide they didn't want full HRH Prince as it creates more attention, fuss and focus. The Queen wasn't denying Archie titles, he wasn't eligible under law to have them, she simply didn't amended the law to give him any. She didn't do it because of race or "how dark" his skin was she did it because that is what the law said and that is also giving him and his parents the most freedom to make decisions for themselves later on. Heck you can even argue she treated him "unfairly" compared to W&Ks children but most would say he was just treated differently which is unavoidable in a RF - but nowhere does that add up to racism. Given H&M said they had been talking about leaving the RF before Archie was even born it seems odd they also wanted to be tied to it so much by giving their son HRH Prince ahead of the time when he was legally entitled to it, given they have talked about privacy and wanting more control over access to themselves etc it seems odd to want to give your son a title that would bring with it a claim of "public interest" in everything he does. As the interview showed quite a lot IMO - their words and actions don't marry up, they say one thing but do another then say one thing completely the opposite. I'm not surprised if the RF and their staff didn't know how best to help them - H&M barely seem to know themselves.
  #486  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Observer7 View Post
I am sick to death reading about the Letters Patent of 1917 from George V. So what? Times have changed. Both William and Harry's children are all great-grandchildren of the Monarch. William's children would not have been titled if the Queen had not stepped in. If Harry's children can wait until Charles becomes king then William's children could have as well and should have. The Queen should not have done it for one brother's children and not the other. Had it been done when Archie was born, this so-called royal family crisis may have been averted. And before anyone says it, I don't care about who is where in the line of succession.

Yes the children of William and Harry are great-grandchildren of the monarch just like the children of Peter, Zara and Eugenie but unlike their Wales cousins' kids, their children will not be titled. Nor are they complaining about it publicly. The Sussexes could have also chosen to use the title Earl of Dumbarton which is available to Archie. Their daughter could be Lady ___Mountbatten-Windsor. These are titles that Peter, Zara and Eugenie's children will never have and as far as I know, their parents are not complaining about it in public. More than likely they're not complaining in private either. Unlike Harry they seem to understand that they are family members in a hereditary monarchy and not everyone is of the same rank.
  #487  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:25 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Going back to Lady Louise Windsor and Viscount Severn's security, it's really quite hard to tell if they have personal protection and let alone if it's private paid or publicly funded, when they are hardly seen in public (apart from Trooping of the Colours, church services or other public events, which are already provided with security). Lady Louise in particular has not been seen by herself, let alone outside palace/castle ground. I guess when the Wessex children are accompanied by their parents during official duty, The Earl and Countess of Wessex's security (funded by taxpayer) would protect them (E.g. South Africa tour in 2015, Great British Beach Clean in 2020, Bristol Zoo in 2019, Sophie and Louise at Haslar Marina in 2018).

In terms of travelling to and from school, I'm not quite sure if Louise and James are provided with security (let alone whether it's public funded or privately paid). And since Sandringham and Balmoral (privately owned not Crown Estate) are quite secured, I don't think there is a need of security for the Wessex children (for horse riding and carriage driving, especially when their coaches/trainers are next to them). There is probably no security protection for other family events that are not part of royal engagement (E.g. Weekend Fair and horse show with the Tindalls and Phillips family).

P.s. I bet the media/tabloid is very upset that Lady Louise Windsor is not a party girl, but more interested in horses and other outdoor activities.
Given that it’s been well established that their parents only get security while doing Royal duties, I doubt they have publicly funded security. And if Edward wants to pay for private security that’s his choice...
  #488  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:26 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 4,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
But who is where in a the line of succession is of vital importance for them. I know it doesn't matter to you but it does to them. And they're not terribly concerned with everything being equal. I know it boggles American Republican, and I mean that in the strictest sense of the definition not in regards to a political party, minds and ideologies but there it is. I'm sure you would strive to make everything extremely equal between all your children, grandchildren, etc. but that is not at all how it works in monarchies. There are always going to be members of the family who are of greater and lesser rank.
It boggles this Australian republican, too, but while I have massive issues with the entire system of the British monarchy, which extends its tentacles to my country because the British monarch for the time being is my monarch and my head of state under our Constitution (which was an Act of the British parliament!) I support the particular objectives of the 2013 Letters Patent because they were directed towards gender equality. Under the 1917 deal, if Charlotte had been William's first-born, she would not have been a princess during the Queen's lifetime even though she would have been William's heir according to the Succession Act of 2013. As things stood under the 1917 Letters Patent, only George and Louis would have had princely titles until Charles became king and they became the monarch's grandchildren, so in my opinion it was right to level that particular field.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
  #489  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:26 PM
moby's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownPrincessJava View Post
On the Africa trip, Harry and Meghan had events where Archie would be away from his parent. As is the case, security would have to be with Archie and his nanny wherever they were staying. As a result of Archie not receiving protection, it is reported that one of the protection officers for Meghan or Harry needed to step in. What this creates is a vulnerability to either Meghan or Harry security as a potential attack vector was created. Luckily, this information was not known at the time because being very senior royals with a very high interest, there is an inherently high risk for ALL of the family.

Whenever Meghan was in public with Archie, she had her own protection, but not for Archie - again creating a potential new attack vector. I remember seeing photos of Kate, with George in the pram and having two protection officers close to her - one for her and one for George.

Archie would not be deemed low-risk. But also - we have no idea what the assessment criteria is. And we will never know
I'm sorry but I find it laughable that they have this concern about dividing security during the tour. These things are ironed out in advance before such trips, people who do this know that there are "detailed scenario" documents that details their every movement, considers everything--from speeches, to protocol, to tokens, to where they enter, where they exit, the stage, literally everything one can think of... And I'm supposed to think their team is so inept that they didn't plan well and had to compromise on security while there? The only reason this might happen is if the couple suddenly decided on movements that were not pre-planned, such as suddenly leaving Archie somewhere when the plan was to bring him with them throughout. In which case, they sound like every diva VIP I've worked with, impulsively deciding on matters without a thought to the careful planning that goes into official events. The careful planning, I can't stress enough, is largely almost always to make sure the principals are secure. It's also just professional and polite to make sure one follows the planned scenario--not only are their own security involved, these things also heavily involve local police who have coordinated months in advance with the RPOs on movements, etc.

So no matter what these two say about their security concerns, the fact that they are fine means the security personnel did a fine job. Saying otherwise is a disservice to the experience and expertise of the Metropolitan Police, their RPOs, and on their foreign tours--the local policemen who had to work with them.
  #490  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:38 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
Family fold? Quite possibly. As working royals-- I just don't see how/why the UK taxpayers would tolerate paying for them after every thing that has gone on..



I have seen many online posts referring to Meghan's friend interview this morning as an out and out attempt by Harry and Meghan to blackmail the RF. The thought process being that they expected the Bank of Dad to open back up after the interview and were shocked by TQ'S response.



So 72 hours after the interview, the tide might be turning against them- or at least that is my impression of it

I hadn’t thought about the interview of Meghan’s friend as an attempt to blackmail the BRF. Interesting.


I had thought of it as an example of another lie on their part: this interview was supposed to be their last word on the subject. They authorized their friend to talk....then they are still talking IMO.

I’d like to see the tide turn, for sure. The more I ponder their interview, the more disgusted I get. It was just wrong.
  #491  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:41 PM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
It boggles this Australian republican, too, but while I have massive issues with the entire system of the British monarchy, which extends its tentacles to my country because the British monarch for the time being is my monarch and my head of state under our Constitution (which was an Act of the British parliament!) I support the particular objectives of the 2013 Letters Patent because they were directed towards gender equality. Under the 1917 deal, if Charlotte had been William's first-born, she would not have been a princess during the Queen's lifetime even though she would have been William's heir according to the Succession Act of 2013. As things stood under the 1917 Letters Patent, only George and Louis would have had princely titles until Charles became king and they became the monarch's grandchildren, so in my opinion it was right to level that particular field.
Not even Louis, just George.

The 1917 Letters Patent limit it to "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales". That, presently, is George.

Had the Queen not issued her own LPs in 2012 before George's birth, of the Cambridge children, only George would be HRH Prince because he is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Charlotte is a daughter, Louis the second son.

If Charlotte had been born first, without the 2012 LPs, the following situation would have occurred:

Charlotte, the heir to the heir to the heir, future Queen, would have been Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor until her grandfather became King.
George, the second child of the heir to the heir, but eldest son, would have been HRH Prince George of Cambridge from birth.
Louis, the third child of the heir to the heir, would have been Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor.

The 2012 LPs were issued to prevent the above situation, where the heir is untitled but a younger brother is. They levelled the playing field for the Cambridge heirs - the direct line.
__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
  #492  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:45 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
and they stipulated that if Catherine had given birth to a girl first then she wouldn't have had any HRH or Princess title but if they had then gone on to have a son he would have been HRH Prince XYZ - it seems the Queen was simply making it fair for all of William's children.
I am not so sure that she was making it fair. IMO it was the exact opposite. I think that she did it to ensure that everyone knew that William's first-born was the highest-ranked of all of his children. Had George and Charlotte been reversed in order, Lady Charlotte Elizabeth Diana Mountbatten-Windsor would have been perceived as a lower rank than her younger brother, HRH Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge, even though she was the next in line to the throne. And to the royals, optics are everything. This was the same thing that her father did for her before her children were born. Because the heir to the heir to the throne shouldn't be born a mere Lord or Lady.
  #493  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:48 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
So let's suppose that Charles gives in and pays for security for the whole family in California and continues to pay Harry and Meghan an "allowance" for their life in LA. The next thing is an exclusive nursery school for Archie (and his sister), then private school tuition, university tuition -- ah but Archie wants to be a doctor, so then there's medical school and a private practice. And then when the kiddos decide to leave the nest, they will both expect a mansion like the one they've become accustomed to, and on and on.

Where do you draw the line?

Ya know, as a parent, one of the most valuable – and hardest – things I can give to my children is freedom – the freedom to fail. To provide for their every want or whim, or to soften the landing for their less-than-stellar choices will do neither I nor them any favors. In these circumstances, what my children believe or what they want matters not at all. What does matter is that they learn the value of what they have, the sacrifices that were made to provide it, and have the utmost appreciation for those that sacrificed. I see none of that with Harry. He not only wants to have his cake and eat it, but he also wants the whole bakery! His primary concern – I daresay his ONLY concern – is himself. He doesn’t appreciate his father, except as his personal ATM; he doesn’t appreciate his family, since they don’t fawn over his every move; and he certainly doesn’t appreciate the British people, who through their taxes (on their hard-earned paychecks) paid for the security that he enjoyed until last year. The “respect” that he believes he is due is a figment of his imagination. That level of respect is earned, and he spent his last bit of currency long before doing this interview.

So to Charles, I say “Good on you!”. To Harry, “Grow up!”
Nobody is saying that Charles should totally fund Harry's life in the U.S. Harry and Meghan reached lucrative deals with Spotify and Netflix. But the security being taken away from Harry and his family is a sore spot. Harry said it happened suddenly and he had no idea that it was going to be taken away. A major part of the interview was Harry and Meghan talking about security. My opinion is that Charles ignores the depth of Harry's feelings about this and his feeling of being let down by his father at his own peril. He will be estranged from his son forever.
  #494  
Old 03-10-2021, 11:56 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
So let's suppose that Charles gives in and pays for security for the whole family in California and continues to pay Harry and Meghan an "allowance" for their life in LA. The next thing is an exclusive nursery school for Archie (and his sister), then private school tuition, university tuition -- ah but Archie wants to be a doctor, so then there's medical school and a private practice. And then when the kiddos decide to leave the nest, they will both expect a mansion like the one they've become accustomed to, and on and on.

Where do you draw the line?

Ya know, as a parent, one of the most valuable – and hardest – things I can give to my children is freedom – the freedom to fail. To provide for their every want or whim, or to soften the landing for their less-than-stellar choices will do neither I nor them any favors. In these circumstances, what my children believe or what they want matters not at all. What does matter is that they learn the value of what they have, the sacrifices that were made to provide it, and have the utmost appreciation for those that sacrificed. I see none of that with Harry. He not only wants to have his cake and eat it, but he also wants the whole bakery! His primary concern – I daresay his ONLY concern – is himself. He doesn’t appreciate his father, except as his personal ATM; he doesn’t appreciate his family, since they don’t fawn over his every move; and he certainly doesn’t appreciate the British people, who through their taxes (on their hard-earned paychecks) paid for the security that he enjoyed until last year. The “respect” that he believes he is due is a figment of his imagination. That level of respect is earned, and he spent his last bit of currency long before doing this interview.

So to Charles, I say “Good on you!”. To Harry, “Grow up!”
Y'know, the scenarios you painted where Charles continues to pay out for all those things that surround the Sussex lifestyle, I had to giggle at the picture that came into my mind. Charles the Third (subject to change), by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith paying off US taxes to the IRS. Hmmmm... Harry's probably never had to worry about taxes before so that'll be a new experience for him. Welcome to the US, Harry!

As for parenting, the very best advice I think I've ever seen on raising children is stated simply as: "The job of a parent is to become unnecessary to the child". The child, as an adult, should be able to stand on their own two feet.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #495  
Old 03-11-2021, 12:08 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucy Scot View Post
Nobody is saying that Charles should totally fund Harry's life in the U.S. Harry and Meghan reached lucrative deals with Spotify and Netflix. But the security being taken away from Harry and his family is a sore spot. Harry said it happened suddenly and he had no idea that it was going to be taken away. A major part of the interview was Harry and Meghan talking about security. My opinion is that Charles ignores the depth of Harry's feelings about this and his feeling of being let down by his father at his own peril. He will be estranged from his son forever.

However Charles nor his mother have any control over the publicly funded security. That is the decision of the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police. I'm sorry for Harry and Meghan that they chose not to research this prior to making their announcement last January. If publicly funded security was that important to them, they could have decided to stay on as full time senior royals residing in the UK. Their residence was located on the grounds of Windsor Castle with full time protection for the house and the surrounding property.



I completely disagree that Charles ignores the depths of Harry's feelings on the subject. No doubt it was a very painful time in their relationship. However let's remember that Charles' son is a thirty six year old adult who has made his decision for himself and his family, so therefore he assumes the responsibility of that decision.


Quote:
As for parenting, the very best advice I think I've ever seen on raising children is stated simply as: "The job of a parent is to become unnecessary to the child". The child, as an adult, should be able to stand on their own two feet.

Absolutely true Osipi! Harry's decided that he wants to stand on his own two feet, so I believe that Charles' greatest gift to his son would to give him the opportunity to do so.
  #496  
Old 03-11-2021, 12:09 AM
Queen Ester's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 282
Before one of his trips to the USA, Prince Harry said,

“Every time I get to meet kids and they have been told a real-life prince is coming, the disappointment on their faces when they see me without a crown or a cape..

So, I think the jealousy towards William was always simmering
  #497  
Old 03-11-2021, 12:10 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy100 View Post
Well Queen Zara all the way then if we aren't caring about the line of succession then

The big problem here is people are connecting two different events that happened a long time apart - the Queen made William's children HRH Prince/Princess because those LP you don't want us to mention are the law for titles in effect and they stipulated that if Catherine had given birth to a girl first then she wouldn't have had any HRH or Princess title but if they had then gone on to have a son he would have been HRH Prince XYZ - it seems the Queen was simply making it fair for all of William's children. You have to remember that huge part in this decision is that W&K And their children are the very future of the RF - their future was mapped out (though these events with H&M show one can't assume the children of an heir will stay working within the RF).
Honestly I think the Queen did them a favour not intervening to give Archie titles (and she would have had to purposely intervene as he wasn't entitled to any under law - yet), remember this is the same Queen who has seen her daughter speak out about how glad she was her children didn't have titles and one of her son's actively choose not to use the full titles his children were entitled to so they could grow up more normally. The Queen also knew in time Archie would become HRH Prince but by then his parents may have had a good think about his future and what they want for him and may decide they didn't want full HRH Prince as it creates more attention, fuss and focus. The Queen wasn't denying Archie titles, he wasn't eligible under law to have them, she simply didn't amended the law to give him any. She didn't do it because of race or "how dark" his skin was she did it because that is what the law said and that is also giving him and his parents the most freedom to make decisions for themselves later on. Heck you can even argue she treated him "unfairly" compared to W&Ks children but most would say he was just treated differently which is unavoidable in a RF - but nowhere does that add up to racism. Given H&M said they had been talking about leaving the RF before Archie was even born it seems odd they also wanted to be tied to it so much by giving their son HRH Prince ahead of the time when he was legally entitled to it, given they have talked about privacy and wanting more control over access to themselves etc it seems odd to want to give your son a title that would bring with it a claim of "public interest" in everything he does. As the interview showed quite a lot IMO - their words and actions don't marry up, they say one thing but do another then say one thing completely the opposite. I'm not surprised if the RF and their staff didn't know how best to help them - H&M barely seem to know themselves.
The public was led to believe that Harry and Meghan didn't want Archie to have an HRH title. That was to save face because the reality was that he wasn't going to be an HRH at birth. The Queen wasn't going to take any action to make that happen. It would only happen when Charles became King. And Meghan stated that that was possibly going to be changed. Archie's lack of the HRH title at birth was another bone of contention between the monarchy and the Sussexes. It is clear that Meghan and Harry wanted him to have the HRH title at birth. It seems that Meghan and Harry's time as working royals was death by a thousand cuts, and this was one of those cuts. I wonder if the Royal family was aware that it was all adding up.
  #498  
Old 03-11-2021, 12:51 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
It boggles this Australian republican, too, but while I have massive issues with the entire system of the British monarchy, which extends its tentacles to my country because the British monarch for the time being is my monarch and my head of state under our Constitution (which was an Act of the British parliament!) I support the particular objectives of the 2013 Letters Patent because they were directed towards gender equality. Under the 1917 deal, if Charlotte had been William's first-born, she would not have been a princess during the Queen's lifetime even though she would have been William's heir according to the Succession Act of 2013. As things stood under the 1917 Letters Patent, only George and Louis would have had princely titles until Charles became king and they became the monarch's grandchildren, so in my opinion it was right to level that particular field.
Thank you, some clear sense on this matter.
As with the security question, there is an answer or explanation for all the points raised but Meghan and especially Harry is choosing not to understand.
Instead inferring things that are not true to amplify their grievances.
Who knew a title was so important to an independent minded woman.
  #499  
Old 03-11-2021, 01:13 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 253
If anything, the interview showed just how immature Harry and Meghan are. She was the surprise to me because I thought she hadn't been in the family long enough to acquire this level of entitledness but he was the real shock. He had grown up seeing his uncles and aunt walk behind his father in all public occasions but still thought he should fight every step of the way to be equal to William and offer Meghan a life equal to Catherine's? In a hereditary monarchy? Someone has let him down very badly all his life and it was about time for this mistake to be corrected. I just couldn't believe he thought he could be equal to William, he was this more special than his cousins, re-security, that he considered it proper to throw such an immature fit before millions.


The intervew reminded me something a royal character from Roger Zelazny's Nine Princes of Amber said about his princely siblings and himself: Having so much and so desperately scrambling to get just a little more, a tiny advantage over the others - what can this be called if not madness?
  #500  
Old 03-11-2021, 01:38 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher View Post
I agree that is why she brought it up but she could have just told Oprah that it wasn't true and left it at that. Why say that Catherine made her cry? Catherine isn't going to respond, so it is a she said/she said situation. Some reports are standing firm that Catherine cried. Meghan didn't go into any details that would allow us to evaluate whether Meghan may have overreacted or misunderstood.
It's also imaginable that after that particular incident, both Meghan and Catherine cried, and not know it from eachother, and that Catherine made a peace offering, not because she necessarily feels she was wrong, but because sometimes, especially in smaller arguments, someone has to be the bigger person and 'step over their own shadow'.

My problem is that H&M feel the need to publicly air their grievances, when they should know that the other party isn't likely to respond in public.

i say 'should know' and not 'know' because from this interview i have a feeling they actually know and understand very little about the situation, other than their own feelings.

Having said that, it's horrible that they both got depressed by their former position in life, maybe still are, and am very happy they were able to step out of that situation.
i just wish that, if they are still depressed and possibly not capable to look at the situation in it's entirety, that friends or family they do still connect with (her mother? the Spencers?) would step in and talk them down from making these destructive decisions...

just my 2 cts
__________________

__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
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 with Oprah II - Interview, March 7th-9th 2021 Jacknch The Electronic Domain 1196 03-09-2021 01:48 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi american american history ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism british british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen camilla carolin china chinese clarence house commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dresses duke of sussex earl of snowdon family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf history hochberg house of windsor imperial household italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery jewelry king edward vii line of succession list of rulers luxembourg maxima meghan markle monarchy nepal nepalese royal jewels pless prince constantijn princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess of orange princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal jewels royalty of taiwan serbian royal family spain sussex swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:51 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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