The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1561  
Old 03-11-2023, 12:49 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,300
From the Winfrey interview:

Meghan: …..You know, the other piece of that conversation is, there’s a convention — I forget if it was George V or George VI convention — that when you’re the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harry’s dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.
Oprah: So, for you, it’s about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.
Meghan: That’s a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . . 
Oprah:  . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?
Meghan: Yeah, but also it’s not their right to take it away.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention I’m talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.

This appears to confirm that there were plans being discussed to change the 1917 LP. And H&M didn't like it one bit. I suspect the LP would have been changed but her malicious smears put an end to that.
Reply With Quote
  #1562  
Old 03-11-2023, 12:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post

The crucial question would be "If the current top four weren't there, would the public accept King Henry and Queen Meghan?" I'd put money on the answer being overwhelmingly "NO".
Yes I agree. That sums it up very well. I'd probably add deafening to overwhelming.
Reply With Quote
  #1563  
Old 03-11-2023, 12:58 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
The crucial question would be "If the current top four weren't there, would the public accept King Henry and Queen Meghan?" I'd put money on the answer being overwhelmingly "NO".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Yes I agree. That sums it up very well. I'd probably add deafening to overwhelming.
Actions speak louder than words.

Under the present legislation, there is a very realistic chance that the United Kingdom will have King Harry and Queen Meghan, or Prince Regent Harry and the regent's consort Meghan, as their head or de facto head of state and first lady, carrying out state visits and representing Britain at the highest levels around the world.

All it would take would be (in the first scenario) a tragic accident when three young siblings are in the same room, car, helicopter, etc., or (in the second scenario) one man dying before the age of 82 and another man dying before the age of 49. Both scenarios sadly strike on a regular basis in families all around the country.

In these circumstances, there is still no apparent pressure from the British public on their MPs to amend the legislation to prevent the very real possibility of a King/Prince Regent Harry and Queen/Princess Consort Meghan - therefore we can safely assume that while the majority may not be pleased with those realistic scenarios, they still consider them acceptable outcomes.
Reply With Quote
  #1564  
Old 03-11-2023, 12:58 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC View Post
I absolutely agree with everything in your excellent post - thanks!

Yes, infuriating is the word I was looking for! The hypocrisy absolutely infuriates me! If I were a family member, I cannot imagine being in the same room with them!

But I’m an American and we don’t have a line of succession. I would like to know what the British posters think about all of this. Has there been any talk to do something about removing them or does the average person not really care?
I am not British, but the line of succession is determined by law, so only an act of Parliament can change it in the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the UK shares its line of succession to the Crown with 14 other countries, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand. By convention, in the United Kingdom, an act of the UK Parliament touching the succession to the Crown would be expected then to receive the assent also of the Parliaments of the other Commonwealth realms before the British government would issue a commencement order. To make matters even more complicated, in some, but not all of those realms, the law of succession is also incorporated into their domestic law. So, to keep the symmetry between the line of succession to their own Crowns and the line of succession to the UK Crown, they would have to take action to change their domestic law first too, more so than simply assenting to the UK legislation. In some countries, that can be constitutionally complicated. For example, in Australia, it would require legislation both from the federal Parliament and the Parliaments of each Australian state.

In summary, changing the line of succession may be a long and difficult process, possibly involving multiple Parliaments in different countries. Accordingly, it is not a matter to be taken lightly or casually. Removing someone from the line of succession would be agreed probably only in grave circumstances like treason or other high crimes. I don't think honestly that the Duke of Sussex has done anything to clear that bar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

All it would take would be (in the first scenario) a tragic accident when three young siblings are in the same room, car, helicopter, etc., or (in the second scenario) one man dying before the age of 82 and another man dying before the age of 49. Both scenarios sadly strike on a regular basis in families all around the country.

In these circumstances, there is still no apparent pressure from the British public on their MPs to amend the legislation to prevent the very real possibility of a King/Prince Regent Harry and Queen/Princess Consort Meghan - therefore we can safely assume that while the majority may not be pleased with those realistic scenarios, they still consider them acceptable outcomes.
Changes to the regency arrangements are easier to make than removing Harry from the line of succession because it is a domestic UK matter. Currently, the UK Regency Acts extend automatically to New Zealand under Section 4 of the
New Zealand Constitution Act 1986
, but they do not apply for example to Australia and Canada. The UK Parliament would not need the consent then neither of Australia, nor Canada or New Zealand to change its regency law (note: I don't know what the legal status of the regency is in the other realms).

When Prince Charles was a minor, the law was amended by the Regency Act 1953 to make Prince Philip Regent should a regency be needed, probably because the default Regent at the time, i.e., Princess Margaret, was not deemed suitable. I am pretty sure that, if William ascends the throne before George turns 18, Parliament can act quickly to appoint Catherine or someone else as prospective Regent instead of Harry.
Reply With Quote
  #1565  
Old 03-11-2023, 01:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,777
An anonymous "friend" of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex commented to Victoria Ward of the Telegraph on the timing of the recent updates:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...ease-frogmore/

Quote:
[...] Prince Harry and Meghan made the decision to use Archie and Lilibetís prince and princess titles last year and shared their decision with Buckingham Palace.

However, they were frustrated that the Royal family failed to immediately recognise Archie and Lilibet's elevated status on its website [...]

There was no movement on the issue until a tabloid newspaper broke the news that the Sussexes had been asked to vacate their Windsor home. [...]

On the same day, the palace offered to update its website with Archie and Lilibetís new titles, it is understood.

One friend of the couple raised an eyebrow about the timing of such communication, which was interpreted as an attempt to curry favour or to smooth relations amid the public humiliation.

[...]

A royal source insisted that they had always planned to wait until the Sussexes chose to reveal the news themselves rather than make the announcement on their behalf.

Buckingham Palace declined to comment.
Reply With Quote
  #1566  
Old 03-11-2023, 01:08 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Actions speak louder than words.

Under the present legislation, there is a very realistic chance that the United Kingdom will have King Harry and Queen Meghan, or Prince Regent Harry and the regent's consort Meghan, as their head or de facto head of state and first lady, carrying out state visits and representing Britain at the highest levels around the world.

All it would take would be (in the first scenario) a tragic accident when three young siblings are in the same room, car, helicopter, etc., or (in the second scenario) one man dying before the age of 82 and another man dying before the age of 49. Both scenarios sadly strike on a regular basis in families all around the country.

In these circumstances, there is still no apparent pressure from the British public on their MPs to amend the legislation to prevent the very real possibility of a King/Prince Regent Harry and Queen/Princess Consort Meghan - therefore we can safely assume that while the majority may not be pleased with those realistic scenarios, they still consider them acceptable outcomes.

What is on paper and the reality are two different things, I do not find this a comfortable subject anyway so I will withdraw.
Reply With Quote
  #1567  
Old 03-11-2023, 01:33 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I think everyone would prefer Anne or Edward to Harry or Andrew, but cutting people out of the line of succession is complicated and can't really be done on grounds of unpopularity. Which is possibly a bit of a shame, but so it is!
Um, I think that harry's self exile to the US, counts as walking out on the job, and Andrew's sexual scandal is also a serious issue and more than unpopularity. I think if either of them was next in line there woudl be pressure to get them to renounce their place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
From the Winfrey interview:

Meghan: Ö..You know, the other piece of that conversation is, thereís a convention ó I forget if it was George V or George VI convention ó that when youíre the grandchild of the monarch, so when Harryís dad becomes king, automatically Archie and our next baby would become prince or princess, or whatever they were going to be.
Oprah: So, for you, itís about protection and safety, not so much as what the . . . what the title means to the world.
Meghan: Thatís a huge piece of it, but, I mean, but . . . 
Oprah:  . . . and that having the title gives you the safety and protection?
Meghan: Yeah, but also itís not their right to take it away.
Oprah: Yeah.
Meghan: Right? And so, I think even with that convention Iím talking about, while I was pregnant, they said they want to change the convention for Archie.

This appears to confirm that there were plans being discussed to change the 1917 LP. And H&M didn't like it one bit. I suspect the LP would have been changed but her malicious smears put an end to that.
Do you really believe what Meghan says? She is lying in that conversation by saying that the title has to do with protection and safety. She's probably lying that they were planning to issue LPs to remove the HRH from Archie. The queen would NOT do it, IMHO, and for Charles to do it he would have to let Archie have the title briefly and then take it away and I dont believe he would do that. And she calls it a convention which shows that she's not at all clear about it.
Reply With Quote
  #1568  
Old 03-11-2023, 01:51 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Do you really believe what Meghan says? She is lying in that conversation by saying that the title has to do with protection and safety. She's probably lying that they were planning to issue LPs to remove the HRH from Archie. The queen would NOT do it, IMHO, and for Charles to do it he would have to let Archie have the title briefly and then take it away and I dont believe he would do that. And she calls it a convention which shows that she's not at all clear about it.
Just because she lied about security doesn't mean she lied about questions over Archie's future title. I don't doubt it's true at all. It makes perfect sense. I think the King was more than happy to issue new LPs.

She knew exactly what she was talking about despite calling it a convention.
Reply With Quote
  #1569  
Old 03-11-2023, 02:03 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
An anonymous "friend" of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex commented to Victoria Ward of the Telegraph on the timing of the recent updates:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...ease-frogmore/
Of course they wanted to use these titles. They could have chosen to follow the Wessex example but they wont do that. Harry in particular is so conscious of his status, so defensive of any perceived slights. Besides they need the attention & any money making opportunities they can get from exploiting titles.
Reply With Quote
  #1570  
Old 03-11-2023, 02:32 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Just because she lied about security doesn't mean she lied about questions over Archie's future title. I don't doubt it's true at all. It makes perfect sense. I think the King was more than happy to issue new LPs.

She knew exactly what she was talking about despite calling it a convention.
So why didn't he issue new LPs? He coudl have done so in the last 6 months, he's been accused of racism already, so if he really wanted to, he could have changed things?
Reply With Quote
  #1571  
Old 03-11-2023, 02:33 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: West Chester, United States
Posts: 308
Anyone wanna take bets that the Sussex's are angling to take Prince Archie to the Coronation, if only for a small amount of time. I believe the then Prince Charles attended a * small part* of QEll' Coronation. So sad if that happens, because it would definitely make headlines.

I can definitely see them saying that Prince Louis at 4 years old attended Jubilee Events.....why can't Prince Archie? He is now the same age.

Just as Harry was preposterously negotiating and wanted Meghan to go with him to The Queens deathbed at Balmoral. Until he was flatly refused, Kate wasn't going, end of discussion. Precious time He wasted. William, Andrew, Edward and Sophie left without him. He had to arrange his own private flight up. The sulk and strop must have been epic.

Just as Diana used to orchestrate appearances to take the headlines from Charles, I can see the Sussex's doing something covertly to have attention on them. Using Prince Archie at Granddads BIG DAY would be perfect. Diana was terrific at stealing thunder, but compared to the Sussex's, she was a novice......LOL.

I just hope whoever the Team is tasked with the unenviable details of settling The Sussex's at Coronation Events are up to it. What a grim challenge !
Reply With Quote
  #1572  
Old 03-11-2023, 02:40 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
So why didn't he issue new LPs? He coudl have done so in the last 6 months, he's been accused of racism already, so if he really wanted to, he could have changed things?
Because doing so would confirm in the minds of many that the accusations about race that Meghan made were true. That's why no new LPs have been issued. It's the only reason. Otherwise The King would have carried on with his changes & "slimming down" as shown by giving his brother a life peerage. No new ducal cadet lines from now on.
Reply With Quote
  #1573  
Old 03-11-2023, 02:44 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Actions speak louder than words.

Under the present legislation, there is a very realistic chance that the United Kingdom will have King Harry and Queen Meghan, or Prince Regent Harry and the regent's consort Meghan, as their head or de facto head of state and first lady, carrying out state visits and representing Britain at the highest levels around the world.
[...]
In these circumstances, there is still no apparent pressure from the British public on their MPs to amend the legislation to prevent the very real possibility of a King/Prince Regent Harry and Queen/Princess Consort Meghan - therefore we can safely assume that while the majority may not be pleased with those realistic scenarios, they still consider them acceptable outcomes.
The reasons the British public aren't pressuring their MPs to change the LoS are because there are many more urgent issues consuming our thoughts and also that the scenario leading to 'King Henry' is too awful to contemplate and highly unlikely so Harry will probably remain where he is in LoS. In the event of a terrible tragedy, I would stake my last £1 that if public opinion of the Sussexes remains as low as it is currently, the monarchy's existence would be on a knife edge and we'd have a referendum on becoming a republic.

Harry used to be one of the most popular members of the BRF but he's bitten the hand that feeds him. In legal terms, popularity doesn't have an impact on the line of succession but in reality, without public approval, we wouldn't have a monarchy at all so popularity does matter.
Reply With Quote
  #1574  
Old 03-11-2023, 02:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Besides they need the attention & any money making opportunities they can get from exploiting titles.
Hmm, but I wonder, if there is any chance to milk the titles in the future of the kids.

I mean, the Sussex title is already a courtesy one. Prince Harry does not own a castle in Sussex or a manor. I even wonder, what was the last time he was in Sussex, or if he has even ever done something for Sussex... It is just a dubious title! But he is the second son of a reigning King, that is true, a Prince.

So, the kids will be probably more like euro-trash in America with their titles! Distant relatives of then King William...
Reply With Quote
  #1575  
Old 03-11-2023, 02:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,300
The outcome would be:

a republic, King Archie (regent anyone(!) other than his parents) or skipping straight to Queen Beatrice.

Republicans, Legitimists or Yorkists! Almost like in France! Instead of Bonapartists we could have a faction of the Jacobites added to the melee!

Sounds fun!
Reply With Quote
  #1576  
Old 03-11-2023, 03:07 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granada View Post
Anyone wanna take bets that the Sussex's are angling to take Prince Archie to the Coronation, if only for a small amount of time.
I think the answer to that would be his position as the son of non working family members. No one wishes the boy anything but a happy life but there's no appetite in Britain for this family. Not after everything that's happened.
Reply With Quote
  #1577  
Old 03-11-2023, 03:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: Aylesbury, United Kingdom
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
I think the answer to that would be his position as the son of non working family members. No one wishes the boy anything but a happy life but there's no appetite in Britain for this family. Not after everything that's happened.
No one would would wish them anything but the absolute best.

But they aren't, at the moment, anything to Don with the royals.
Reply With Quote
  #1578  
Old 03-11-2023, 03:26 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Granada View Post
Anyone wanna take bets that the Sussex's are angling to take Prince Archie to the Coronation, if only for a small amount of time. I believe the then Prince Charles attended a * small part* of QEll' Coronation. So sad if that happens, because it would definitely make headlines.
If Archie's parents are looking for photo opportunities to enhance their family 'brand' (which is what they have become), they could do worse than ensuring that Prince Archie of Sussex is photographed at his grandfather the King's coronation beside his royal parents in all their finery.

Maybe the Sussexes will play it cool though, take a back seat and let others have the limelight.
Reply With Quote
  #1579  
Old 03-11-2023, 03:26 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
I think everyone would prefer Anne or Edward to Harry or Andrew, but cutting people out of the line of succession is complicated and can't really be done on grounds of unpopularity. Which is possibly a bit of a shame, but so it is!
Changing it so that gender neutral succession were retrospective would likely be easier. Given that Charles only had sons, no one would have lost a realistic chance of inheriting the throne (the argument given for not doing it) had that applied. Andrew was 4th in line with his nephew having recently married at the time gender neutral succession was agreed.

They canít cut Harry out for bringing the monarchy into disrepute either. Itís a loose definition that could have excluded from the line most of the people in it!
Reply With Quote
  #1580  
Old 03-11-2023, 03:43 PM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 11,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Of course they wanted to use these titles. They could have chosen to follow the Wessex example but they wont do that. Harry in particular is so conscious of his status, so defensive of any perceived slights. Besides they need the attention & any money making opportunities they can get from exploiting titles.
This is coming from a "friend" of the Sussexes??
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"If your dreams don't scare you, they are not big enough" Sir Sidney Poitier
1927-2022
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 20 (6 members and 14 guests)
Bensgal, Binz, Ista, JuliSt, Mirabel, TLLK
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 and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 6: Aug. 2021- Oct. 2022 JessRulz The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 2014 10-06-2022 12:16 PM
Princess Stephanie Current Events 1 : Oct.2002 - Oct.2004 Tisha Current Events Archive 266 10-03-2004 11:42 AM




Popular Tags
#princedubai #rashidmrm abdullah ii africa all tags america arcadie arcadie claret british caroline charles iii current events death defunct thrones denmark elizabeth ii empress masako espana fabio bevilacqua fallen kingdom garsenda genealogy general news grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed history hobbies hollywood hotel room for sale identifying introduction jewels jordan royal family king king charles king philippe king willem-alexander lady pamela hicks leopold ier matrilineal monarchy movies need help new zealand; cyclone gabrielle official visit order of the redeemer pamela hicks preferences prince albert monaco prince christian queen alexandra queen camilla queen elizabeth queen elizabeth ii queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima republics restoration royal wedding silk spain spanish royal family state visit state visit to france state visit to germany switzerland william wine glass woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:22 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises