shape
carat
color
clarity

Is it fair that Meghan and Harry's children won't be prince/princess?

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,335
Apparently the reason that Harry and Meghan expressed themselves on TV with Oprah is that Prince Charles told Harry and Meghan that Archie would never be a prince. His other grandchildren are princes/princesses.

Is this fair? And do you think that the interview was a good way of responding?
 

icy_jade

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
4,507
Well…
1. Not all of the Queen’s grandchildren are princes or princesses anyway even when they are already eligible. Only Prince Andrew insisted for his daughters (do you see the similarity here?). Prince Edward’s kids are not - they asked for it wanting a more normal life for their kids.
2. Prince Charles wanted a more slimmed down monarchy for years. It’s not a secret. If you follow the news all these years, it made sense too as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie made the news years ago for spending too much going on holidays and for security.
3. H&M are no longer working royals and are not supposed to use their titles. They have also heaped so much criticism for the institution that gave them their titles to begin with. Why should the children have titles when they will not be working royals?
 

maryjane04

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
1,150
Yep totally agree that they don't need those titles especially if they are not working royals.

I think H&M already know this since they named their son and daughter Archie and Lilibet.

I think that maybe there is no role suitable for Harry and the monarchy was a safety net for him.

I don't think that the interview was the way to go about it but I guess H&M are trying to make a name for themselves and by being independent/separate to the royal family.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,335
When Archie was born, Harry and Meghan said they weren't bothered about a title for him. I guess they meant they weren't bothered about him having a title upon birth since they "knew" he would become a prince when Charles became king. (He could have had the title Earl of Dumbarton when he was born.)

They were clearly so angry during the Oprah interview.
 

Kyton

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Messages
64
Well since it’s the way it’s been Royal protocol since 1917 IMO it‘s sour grapes and trying to sling mud on the Royal family. It’s very plainly decreed that the only way any of the children of Harry will become Prince or Princess is only after Charles ascends to the throne and even then, only at his discretion so they cannot feign ignorance at any stage.
 

Snowdrop13

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,591
Most of the other European Royal families have “slimmed down” as well. I believe the Swedish King removed titles from some of his grandchildren recently in order that they could lead more normal lives. Prince Charles is correct to think that we don’t need endless Princes and Princesses; an heir and a spare is more than enough!

Harry and Meghan have an odd agenda. They are railing against the monarchy and complaining about their treatment at the hands of the establishment, while demanding titles for their kids. Can’t have it both ways.
 

dk168

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
8,908
That's not what I interpreted from an article in the Times in UK today, in that they can choose when they reach 18 whether to be a prince and a princess or not.

It is the same with the Wessex's children, in that they can decide for themselves when they reach 18.

And I shall only say this once - the Sussex's have made their beds, and they have to sleep in them and put up with the consequences.

DK :))
 

dk168

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
8,908
Fair or not, it's protocol. And I am indeed in favour of slimming - I'm with Charles here. Plus: H&M wanted more privacy, wanted to not be part of the monarchy anymore. So where exactly is the problem with their kids to not have titles? I really don't get it.

IMHO, they mis-calculated the responses and reactions to their decision of leaving "the firm" to seek their much-craved for privacy and freedom to pursue their dreams, etc. etc...

Good riddance I'd say.

Every family has internal issues, the royal family is no different in that respect.

DK :))
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
46,836
Life is not fair.
This is the way it is.
Instead of beating yourself up about something you cannot change the wise and prudent thing would be to accept and move on and make the most of your life. Not spend energy and precious time lamenting about what can never be.

"You, your and yourself" is used in the general term and not referring to any one specific individual.
 

Bron357

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
5,360
As said before, they can’t have it both ways.
If they want to be Royals, to enjoy titles and a security detail courtesy of the taxpayer, then they have obligations and responsibilities to bear.
They were “second tier” Royals meaning that they didn’t get first pick of causes or charities or events. They were being told what they can do and what they can’t and for Meghan especially that would have been a rude shock / awakening.
 

Kyton

Rough_Rock
Joined
Nov 2, 2020
Messages
64
That's not what I interpreted from an article in the Times in UK today, in that they can choose when they reach 18 whether to be a prince and a princess or not.

It is the same with the Wessex's children, in that they can decide for themselves when they reach 18.

And I shall only say this once - the Sussex's have made their beds, and they have to sleep in them and put up with the consequences.

DK :))
Haven’t read the article you quoted but no, they cannot choose once they turn 18. The Queen can choose her children and grandchildren’s titles with input from her children. Anne and Edward chose not to have Princess / Prince titles for their children. Andrew on the other hand wanted his daughters to be Princesses.

As direct heirs, William and George are deigned Princes. The Queen changed a portion of the ruling to encompass all William’s children to be known as Princes / Princesses. Harry’s children were never to be called as such - only when (and if he so chooses at the time) Prince Charles becomes King of England. When this happens and he is coronated, it is his choice as to whether Archie and Lili become HRH and have Royal designation.

As others have said, Charles has made no secret of cutting down massively on the “firm” - in my opinion it will become a very small band encompassing Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and their children as well as Anne. Eugenie and Beatrice may be called upon in need in minor roles - a bit like the Queen’s cousins and their wives over the last 50years.
 

Austina

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
5,650
Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips are living proof that you can have a ‘normal life (well, as normal as it’s possible if you’re closely related to the Queen) without a title, and seem to be happy.

I’m all for Charles’ plan to slim down the royal family, especially when they‘re not working. I thought the object of H & M’s move to the US and their stepping back from the royal family, was to have a more normal, private life, so why would they want their children to have titles, which would single them out?

Prince Edward and his wife Sophie, have already said they think it highly unlikely their children will use their titles in adulthood, and understand they’re going to have to work for a living.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
7,901
Apparently the reason that Harry and Meghan expressed themselves on TV with Oprah is that Prince Charles told Harry and Meghan that Archie would never be a prince.

IMO -- They deliberately misrepresented the issue during that interview. They are trying to find a way to remain relevant to the public and history has shown that monarchy controversies grab attention. I also think they're awkwardly trying to link lack of a title for Archie to their claims of racist behavior toward Meghan -- the whole someone wondered about the skin color of Archie's skin thing.

I find them uninteresting.
 

tyty333

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
24,004
I think the "story" was that H&M wanted Archie to be a Prince so he could have/get security. I'm not sure why Harry didnt
realize (or ask) in advance what the situation would be for his children. I would think most parents in that situation would
need to know in advance whether it would be taken care of or whether they would need to find/pay for their own security.

I don't think Harry prepared Meghan very well for what her future might look like as his wife. Perhaps she didn't ask ??? Not
sure what happened there.

So, I do think its fair that H&M's kids are not Prince or Princesses. I thought the interview was an awful way to handle a family
matter. Seems like they tried to blame the lack of title (Prince) on racism. I think the Queen is the only person that could give
Archie the title of Prince at the moment so unless she was the one asking about his skin tone I don't see that its related. (someone
correct me if I'm wrong about who could make him a prince)

I think H&M seem very immature.
 

elizat

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
3,126
Harry definitely knew that his children were never going to be Prince or Princess. It's clearly spelled out as far as protocol and procedure, going back to the early 1900s.

Once Charles takes the throne, they are eligible to become titled that way. Or they could have requested at the birth of the children that they received the titles, like Andrew did and it could have been given as a courtesy.

The title has nothing to do with security. The title has all to do with who is actually in the line of succession.

If they were so concerned about security, and paying for the same, they should have considered that prior to leaving their roles as working royals.

These two strike me as wanting to have their cake and eat it too, even though the phrase is tired.

I find them disingenuous, as well as boring. If they would like to have a quiet life as private citizens, then they should focus on doing other things outside of trying to work their royal angle, without being active members of the family. You don't see non-working members like Zara and Peter doing tell-all interviews, as well as using titles to try to get by. If Meghan wants to make a living, she has all the opportunity in the world because her profile has been substantially elevated by marrying Harry, so she would have her pick as far as acting roles or voice over roles.

I also struggle to see why they would name a child after the monarch, when the family is allegedly so racist and cruel and hateful to them, as well as the children that grow up within it. Makes no sense.
 

dk168

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
8,908
Haven’t read the article you quoted but no, they cannot choose once they turn 18. The Queen can choose her children and grandchildren’s titles with input from her children. Anne and Edward chose not to have Princess / Prince titles for their children. Andrew on the other hand wanted his daughters to be Princesses.

As direct heirs, William and George are deigned Princes. The Queen changed a portion of the ruling to encompass all William’s children to be known as Princes / Princesses. Harry’s children were never to be called as such - only when (and if he so chooses at the time) Prince Charles becomes King of England. When this happens and he is coronated, it is his choice as to whether Archie and Lili become HRH and have Royal designation.

As others have said, Charles has made no secret of cutting down massively on the “firm” - in my opinion it will become a very small band encompassing Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and their children as well as Anne. Eugenie and Beatrice may be called upon in need in minor roles - a bit like the Queen’s cousins and their wives over the last 50years.

After reading your response, I re-read the said article again, which is based on a royal biographer's book that is being serialised in The Times/The Sunday Times of UK, and am more muddled about constitutional rights/issues.

A molehill is being made out of a mountain by a manipulative couple who are more and more despicable as the day goes by.

Personal opinion and all that.

DK :))
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,335
I blame Harry for not explaining the status quo to Meghan better. (That the press would be a nightmare, that Kate and William will always come first in terms of the business of the Firm, that the future is a slimmed-down monarchy.) It's true that Charles's desire for a smaller monarchy has been known for years.

I also think that if Meghan truly loved Harry for who he is, she wouldn't care about titles.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
7,901

doberman

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
2,187
It's more than fair. Harry and Meghan have essentially abdicated, they should expect this. I will confess that I'm rather repelled by them and their need for attention and to play the victim at this point. I wish they hadn't moved the states. Bad enough that Trump is living in my town.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,335
Harry and Meghan have essentially abdicated, they should expect this

I really agree with this. Seems to me that if you want to be part of the monarchy of a given country - or want your kids to be - then they should be living in that country. I don't even see why they're still duke and duchess of an English county, given that they live in California!
 

doberman

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
2,187
I really agree with this. Seems to me that if you want to be part of the monarchy of a given country - or want your kids to be - then they should be living in that country. I don't even see why they're still duke and duchess of an English county, given that they live in California!

Yes, they abdicated
And then they basically accused Charles and the Queen of poor parenting and either William or Charles of racism, because of an alleged comment about the child's skin tone. I am highly skeptical of this. I think it's much more likely that they interpreted a statement about the babies skin color as racist. They seem to enjoy casting themselves in the role of victim.

I was with my soon to be DIL yesterday and we were talking about babies and she mentioned skin tone. I said that any child would be beautiful no matter his color, but he probably be not as dark as she is or as pale as my son, but somewhere in between. She would really like a baby to have our pale blue eye color, but who knows? It's all a genetic roll of the dice! I have no doubt that someone could read this discussion as racist if they were bound and determined to do so.
 

Alybetter

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
180
Personally I feel like (if they’re genuinely upset about the titles) they’re wanting their cake and to eat it, too. The walked away from the BRF. I think that they should, and hopefully do, understand that in doing so, they lose the rights to the titles and various other bestowments.
That said, I believe that certain members of the BRF could indeed be inclined towards racism. Remember the Blackamoor brooch?

I believe MM was perhaps treated as an outlier, perhaps not only because of her origins, but also because she’s American. I understand why they chose what they chose. But I don’t understand why they’re doing all this press or why they would be upset by not getting titles for their children.

I was an expat in England for many years, and despite the common threads, Americans are very different to Brits.
 

MissGotRocks

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,292
I found the whole Oprah interview distasteful. Families have issues but to air them so publicly is a disservice to all. I don’t think Meaghan ever intended to stay in the royal family and I don’t buy her story about not knowing what it was all about. She is not the young innocent that Diana was and much had been published about her experience. Google could have been her friend!
I honestly don’t think Harry had much interest in it either and between his disinterest and her claims of racism and mental anguish, it was probably very easy to lure him away. I think of her as a pot stirrer. They have made their decision and should be outraged by nothing that follows that decision. Continually chattering about it changes nothing; they should go live the life they have chosen and stay out of the spotlight. I feel for the Queen but this story had roots sown long ago. Terrible mistakes were made from the beginning of Charles and Diana’s marriage and many have had to pay a price for them.
 

maita13

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Messages
1,131
Harry definitely knew that his children were never going to be Prince or Princess. It's clearly spelled out as far as protocol and procedure, going back to the early 1900s.

Once Charles takes the throne, they are eligible to become titled that way. Or they could have requested at the birth of the children that they received the titles, like Andrew did and it could have been given as a courtesy.

The title has nothing to do with security. The title has all to do with who is actually in the line of succession.

If they were so concerned about security, and paying for the same, they should have considered that prior to leaving their roles as working royals.

These two strike me as wanting to have their cake and eat it too, even though the phrase is tired.

I find them disingenuous, as well as boring. If they would like to have a quiet life as private citizens, then they should focus on doing other things outside of trying to work their royal angle, without being active members of the family. You don't see non-working members like Zara and Peter doing tell-all interviews, as well as using titles to try to get by. If Meghan wants to make a living, she has all the opportunity in the world because her profile has been substantially elevated by marrying Harry, so she would have her pick as far as acting roles or voice over roles.

I also struggle to see why they would name a child after the monarch, when the family is allegedly so racist and cruel and hateful to them, as well as the children that grow up within it. Makes no sense.

My sentiments exactly.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,335
Terrible mistakes were made from the beginning of Charles and Diana’s marriage and many have had to pay a price for them.

I agree with all of your post, but so much this. The whole marriage was a really bad idea - they had virtually nothing in common, plus an age gap - which must have seemed much wider given how different they were - and Diana had challenges with her mental health going back to childhood. I imagine the pressures of global fame were not the best thing for her. And Charles didn't even love her, not really. I blame him more than her. She was not only very young but extremely sheltered and naive. He was in his early thirties, and he might have known it wasn't a good idea to marry someone he barely knew and had nothing in common with, imo. Of course, Camilla had gone off and got married. All a total mess.
 

Alybetter

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
180
That incident with the brooch was truly terrible.



Tell me more. I'm curious.

I mean, we’re just different. Brits are more stiff-lipped, not that that’s a bad thing. They don’t share as much. They seem, at least to me, to hold a greater reverence for traditions. There are lots of social expectations. There’s not the same type of opulence as there is in the States - tangible or expressed.
One thing I found truly interesting is the the way that socioeconomic class is displayed. In America, for the most part, it’s pretty to easy to tell if a person is wealthy by the type and style of clothing and/or other adornments they wear. Especially in metropolitan areas. In my experience living in England, it was much harder to spot the wealthy. They dressed down, but not down, just apparently down. Like Wellies, jeans and vest and long sleeve for winter or fall wear. A discerning eye would know the Wellies were Le Chameau, the puffer vest was for something from Harrod’s, etc. Lots of understated and simple jewelry, not a lot of effort put into hair and make up. You’d only know when you see them mount a Mercedes or a Range Rover. I spent a lot of time in Newmarket, and there’s a lot of old money there. The wealthiest were the most casually dressed folks.

Americans seemed louder, more direct, less insular, more social (in some aspects) and boy, we stood out like sore thumbs. Even in the Fens, never mind London or Cambridge.
Not at all blasting England. I LOVED it there and I miss it terribly. But it was different. When we moved back to the States I almost felt foreign myself.

I could totally see that British would take issue with an American actress - so different. Especially if she was take-chargy within the institution of the BRF.
 

Jambalaya

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
4,335
How interesting, Alybetter! Stood out like sore thumbs, lol! What took you across the pond, and how long were you there? And what's in Newmarket that you spent a lot of time there? I wanna say horses, for some reason.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    August Birthstone 2021 - Peridot
    August Birthstone 2021 - Peridot
    The King of Diamonds
    The King of Diamonds
    National Moon Day 2021: Moonstones
    National Moon Day 2021: Moonstones

Holloway Cut Advisor



Top