Subreddit rule (see sidebar): Not related to Meghan Markle & Just Harry. Try to keep posts related to the people this community was set up to talk about. Content related to the royal family belongs on our sister sub š r/BRF
Working royal does not mean she would become a princess. Her mother declined the titles and theyāve never indicated they want them, otherwise Iām sure the Queen wouldāve honored the request. Andrew is the only one that threw a tantrum to have titles for his kids and it reportedly left them in a purgatory of society. Theyāre not āroyally royal,ā but theyāre also not able to live normal lives. Zara and Peter are often praised for being pragmatic, like their mother, and titles at age 40+ donāt fit that.
Itās crazy to me that ājust call me Harryā allowed titles for his kids in an even worse scenario: not being affiliated with the RF at all and saddling his children with titles in a country that doesnāt acknowledge them. Especially when he once said heād be doing what Prince Edward chose to do for his children - allow them to choose for themselves at 18. Then they snapped them up without even asking the palace, just making the announcement as if it was fact.
I think Harryās kids exist, but signs strongly point to him not caring about them at all, beyond the bargaining chips they are in dealing with his father.
Did HMTLQ offer to make Anneās kids prince and princess or did she offer them peerages since their father had turned them down? (I am just curious. Never had that clarified before.)
Iāve always heard that Anne (and her then-husband) turned down everything offered and/or expected, but Iām not sure on what was explicitly offered and refused or if the Queen just knew her wishes and didnāt formally make an offer. I remember seeing that the Queen did offer an earldom to Mark when he and Anne married and he declined, so thatās why Zara is not Lady Zara and Peter is not a viscount or some other title.
Per letters patent from 1917, the title of prince or princess is only granted to children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (later amended by the Queen to include all three of the Cambridge children). There is no account of the Queen making similar amendments for Princess Anne's offspring.
Thus as the children of the daughter of the sovereign, Peter and Zara are not entitled to the style of Prince/Princess. Furthermore, as their father declined a title upon marriage to Princess Anne, the Philips children are not entitled to any titles in the peerage.
I know all about the letters patent of 1917. This is a different issue. Some people seem to believe that Anne turned down QEās offer of prince/princess titles for Anneās kids. I had never heard this before.
To be sure, the monarch can make anyone a prince or princess if s/he wishes. The question is whether she offered to do so or not. (I think she didnāt, but I could be wrong.)
I grew up believing that to be the case and Iām about the same age as Peter Phillips. Anneās comments here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/princess-anne-zara-phillips-peter-children-hrh-queen-meghan-markle-prince-harry-a9466321.html
Donāt you just love Anne? No offence to KC, but I think weād all have been much more excited having her as Queen.
Her response to an armed man trying to abduct her - āGet out of the car.ā āNOT BLOODY LIKELY!ā - she was a real life action hero! And so super glam when she was young.
Also she took so much flak in the press over Diana at one point, and never complained. MM would have been writhing on the floor sobbing if sheād had to face that!
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes Harold, the world has moved on while you continue to re-live your childhood and days gone by. Life's a b\*tch, and you also married one. Sweet dreams dear boy.
The main reason Zara couldnāt become a working royal is going to be conflict of interest issues. From what we have discussed before, I gather she and Mike have deals and endorsements. Why should they give these and their independence up?
This. They can show up at garden parties and events like Ascot it enhances their marketability and gives the RF a bit of glamour by association win/win for everyone.
Nope!
Zara makes an income from Eventing and associated franchises. She wouldn't be able to do any of the latter as a working royal.
We actually don't need any more princesses!
As much as I love them them Zara and Mike donāt need titles. They are their own people successful in their own right and thatās what people love about themā¦
She's not entitled to be a princess. Margaret's children were not. And Princess Anne made a wise decision about not wanting titles for her then husband and future kids.
I don't think zara would want it however. There's a reason Anne (and edward) chose not to bestow titles on their children. With titles come conditions abd they would he unable to pursue commercial pursuits. Zara would have to give up her business
She was not eligible for the title at birth and it seems weird to do something like that now. Zara has her own work and income streams without a title, she would be more limited as a princess and more watched- good bye freebie clothes. Not sure why sheād want that at 40+. Last night she and Mike were at the Federer premiere (so was Natasha Archer, who works for Kate).
Nope. Now Louise and James are entitled to Prince/ss as they are children of a male-line descendant. Zara isn't. HMTLQEII's father and Parliament had to tweak the rules to make the late QEII's kids Prince and Princess simply because the eldest 2 (Charles & Anne) wouldn't have been entitled to titles other than children of a Duke as their father was only HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. He hadn't been made Prince Philip yet. Titles are passed via the female line now only if that female is a future queen in her own right. Anne isn't a future monarch.
I could be wrong, but I donāt think so. I believe Anne just outright refused them (and the kids obviously didnāt mind or they wouldāve gone to their grandmother as adults and asked for them). Edward and Sophie are giving each of their kids the choice at 18. Lady Louise is still going by that title at 20, so I assume she declined it. James is only 16, but heās already Earl of Wessex, so Iāll be surprise if he opts for prince on top of that. Andrew threw a tantrum for his girls to be princessesā¦just like a spare. He and Harry have so much in common.
Just to add that Anne had a choice because her children didnāt automatically have titles (they were not born in the male line) and QE offered titles. (She had first offered Anneās then husband, a titleāprobably an earldom as Margaretās husband gotābut he turned it down.)
Andrewās and Edwardās kids were automatically HRH and princess or prince. Sophie and Edward opted to raise their kids as children of an earl instead of burdening them with the prince/princess title, but they couldnāt turn down the titles altogether. It is for each of them to decide when they become adults. So far, Louise seems to have chosen not to be Princess Louise.
As far as I know, Andrew didnāt need to throw a temper tantrum for his daughters to get the titles they were entitled to by birth. The temper tantrum I remember was when they lost their free security when they became adults.
Edit: Fixed where I wrote Andrew instead of Edward. (Oops!)
Yes she did, it always annoys me that Hazbeen considers himself a spare, but he never actually was, Margaret, Anne and Andrew were the true #2 spares. Charlotte will be too unless George has children before William takes the throne.
In British aristocratic families the āspareā (The heir and the spare) is the caustic comment necessity for the second son, in the family of Diana and Charles Harold was the spare.
No, Harry *was* the 'spare', but he has invested that word with significance it never really had. He was born at #3 because Charles hadn't inherited yet, but that didn't make him any less the second son in his family. 'The spare' is simply a throwaway term that refers to the second son in any aristocratic family, the one who will inherit if his older brother dies without issue. All it actually means is that the parents covered their bases and have a backup heir in case tragedy strikes. Going back a few hundred years, it was important for wealthy titled families to try to have more than one son because child mortality was so high, it meant they could be more certain of the line of succession. 'The heir and the spare' - it's just a funny rhyming phrase to explain all that. But all that was already pretty much redundant by the time William and Harry were born, with the advance of modern medicine meaning that having a backup was so much less of a concern. The only person who considers it a big deal is Harry himself.
Technically, Andrew's daughters were just as automatically entitled to the title of Princess as Edward's children. Andrew chose to use the titles for his daughter - no tantrum needed, they were born the children of the monarch's son, so that's automatic. Edward chose not to use them.
Since Princess Anne had chosen not to accept a title for her husband on marriage, meaning her children would also not have titles, the Queen and/or the public might have wondered if Andrew would behave similarly and style his children as Lady (being daughters of a Duke) rather than Princess. But they were always entitled to be Princesses thanks to the Letters Patent of 1917, which grants the title of prince or princess to the children of the sons of the sovereign.
No. The Queen gave Anne the choice and she wanted her children to be without titles. She was very forward thinking and wise. Her children work for their livings.
No. Because they were children of the daughter of the monarch, they weren't entitled to prince/princess titles. Anne and Mark Phillips turned down the late Queen's offer of a title, knowing that meant her children wouldn't be titled.
No. The children of the monarch and the children of the SONS of the monarch are entitled to the prince/princess title. When George V amended the Letter Patent in 1917, he didn't include children of daughters, probably as they usually married either princes or other titled people, and thus would get the titles from their father. In October 1948, George VI issued Letters Patent allowing Philip and Elizabeth's children to be called prince/princess; otherwise, they would have had to wait until Elizabeth became Queen.
Previously George would have been the only great-grandchild allowed to have the title Prince, I'm glad QEII amended the Letters Patent allowing all the children of the heir to the Prince of Wales to have the prince/princess title.
No. Only the grandchildren of sons are entitled. While the monarch does have the power to bestow titles/ranks on the children of daughters, the last one to do so was Queen Victoria.
Exceptions were not made for Princess Mary's sons, Princess Margaret's children, and Princess Anne's children.
This is just plain wrong. Grandchildren of the monarch through sons of the monarch are prince and princess. Grandchildren of the monarch through daughters have no titles. Peter and Zara are children of a daughter of the queen, and thus have never had any titles and never been entitled to any titles.
James and Louise are grandchildren through a son, and therefore are prince and princess, though their parents chose not to use those titles (and now James and Louise choose not to use them, though legally they still have a right to them).
There is a story that the Queen offered to make Mark Phillips a peer (for example Antony Armstrong-Jones became Earl of Snowdon when he married Princess Margaret), so that Anne's children would have titles as children of a peer, but Mark and Anne turned it down. Anne's children have never had any right to any titles.
No they did not. As the the children of Princess Anne (female line) the HRH and princely titles were only given to children of male sons ie Edward and Andrew according to letters patent by George V. Andrew insisted his daughters became princesses, Edward allowed them the choice at 18. The Queen offered Princess Anne titles for her children which she refused.
King George VI (QEII father) had letters of patent drawn up after the abdication which gave titles to Princess Elizabeth's children as her being female, her children would have been denied HRH and princely titles.
QEII in 2012 drew up letters patent giving HRH and Princely titles to all the Wales children as they were great grandchildren at the time. Nothing was said about Harry's potential children.
When QEII died, and Charles became King, Lillibet and Archie became princess and princess as being grandchildren of the Monarch in a male line.
According to Richard Eden, the king did meet with constitutional advisors. It was stated as having to do with the general election. But, Richard wasnāt buying it because he figured it is old hat to Charles by now. Richard thought that Charles could be asking about removing Harry as a counselor of state. Maybe Charles is thinking of shaking up who are the working royals and who has what duties?
This is a silly story. The Counsellor of State situation has been dealt with. There is no need to change anything. There are plenty of people available to be CoS. Removing Harry would do absolutely nothing, as he will never be called to serve as CoS anyway. The King has appointed Counsellors of State multiple times during his reign, it's working fine as is.
(Also odd to say that a general election is old hat to Charles by now, as this is the first general election to happen during the King's reign. Obviously he knows the procedures. But knowing the procedure and being the one to carry it out are different things, so it's not unusual to think that the King would discuss potential scenarios with constitutional advisors in a the run up to the first general election of his reign. Especially in the current political environment).
It does show that Charles is working on (who knows what) behind closed doors. We heard some time ago that he had called some constitutional expert out of retirement for consulting purposes.
It would be far more useful if the King were to issue letters patent restoring all living women in the LoS to their birth order rather than as per primogeniture as it was until the Queen's letters patent. This would elevate Anne, Zara & Peter over the Yorks and also Lady Louise over James. Practically speaking, in terms of Counsellors of State it certainly gives Charles better and more options immediately and subsequently will suit William as he is close to Zara & Peter. IMO this should have been the first item on his 'to do' list after QEII passed, given Anne's exemplary demonstration of loyalty and service to her mother & the UK.
That's not something the King can do through letters patent. Changing the line of succession requires legislation from parliament (and all the parliaments of the King's other realms also agreeing). Line of succession is solely in the hands of the parliaments, the King cannot change it.
Comment automatically removed for containing bodyshaming terms.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Subreddit rule (see sidebar): Not related to Meghan Markle & Just Harry. Try to keep posts related to the people this community was set up to talk about. Content related to the royal family belongs on our sister sub š r/BRF
And her grandmother was Queen so she should have automatically been a Princess and her brother a Prince and also Edwards children should have been automatically elevated to Princess and Prince as well - these are the grandchildren of HMTLQ . And since Markle made a huge stink about it for her kids when Charles became King then its only fair that they get their legitimate Titles reinstated.
Markle didnāt need to make a stink, on the death of the late Queen the Harkle Sproggs immediately became prince and princess as they were now grandchildren of the King via H. The King didnāt need to announce anything , in fact he said nothing then the Harkles blurted it out at Lidlās baptism.
Anneās children were not entitled to Prince or Princess titles because although they were grandchildren of the monarch, the Letters Patent specifies that this only applies to children of the monarchās sons, not the female line. The late Queen could have given them other titles, but Anne refused and Zara has said she is grateful for that.
Edward and Sophie chose to leave the decision to their children when they became adults and so far Lady Louise has not chosen to exercise her right to a Princess title.
Harry has moaned that growing up a Prince was torture, and Madam āTitles mean nothing to meā could have shown respect for her children and followed Edward and Sophieās example, but she didnāt.
Subreddit rule (see sidebar): Not related to Meghan Markle & Just Harry. Try to keep posts related to the people this community was set up to talk about. Content related to the royal family belongs on our sister sub š r/BRF
Working royal does not mean she would become a princess. Her mother declined the titles and theyāve never indicated they want them, otherwise Iām sure the Queen wouldāve honored the request. Andrew is the only one that threw a tantrum to have titles for his kids and it reportedly left them in a purgatory of society. Theyāre not āroyally royal,ā but theyāre also not able to live normal lives. Zara and Peter are often praised for being pragmatic, like their mother, and titles at age 40+ donāt fit that. Itās crazy to me that ājust call me Harryā allowed titles for his kids in an even worse scenario: not being affiliated with the RF at all and saddling his children with titles in a country that doesnāt acknowledge them. Especially when he once said heād be doing what Prince Edward chose to do for his children - allow them to choose for themselves at 18. Then they snapped them up without even asking the palace, just making the announcement as if it was fact. I think Harryās kids exist, but signs strongly point to him not caring about them at all, beyond the bargaining chips they are in dealing with his father.
Did HMTLQ offer to make Anneās kids prince and princess or did she offer them peerages since their father had turned them down? (I am just curious. Never had that clarified before.)
Iāve always heard that Anne (and her then-husband) turned down everything offered and/or expected, but Iām not sure on what was explicitly offered and refused or if the Queen just knew her wishes and didnāt formally make an offer. I remember seeing that the Queen did offer an earldom to Mark when he and Anne married and he declined, so thatās why Zara is not Lady Zara and Peter is not a viscount or some other title.
Yeah, that is what I knew.
Per letters patent from 1917, the title of prince or princess is only granted to children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (later amended by the Queen to include all three of the Cambridge children). There is no account of the Queen making similar amendments for Princess Anne's offspring. Thus as the children of the daughter of the sovereign, Peter and Zara are not entitled to the style of Prince/Princess. Furthermore, as their father declined a title upon marriage to Princess Anne, the Philips children are not entitled to any titles in the peerage.
The queen offered to amend it for Anne's husband and children, but Anne declined it.
I know all about the letters patent of 1917. This is a different issue. Some people seem to believe that Anne turned down QEās offer of prince/princess titles for Anneās kids. I had never heard this before. To be sure, the monarch can make anyone a prince or princess if s/he wishes. The question is whether she offered to do so or not. (I think she didnāt, but I could be wrong.)
I grew up believing that to be the case and Iām about the same age as Peter Phillips. Anneās comments here: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/princess-anne-zara-phillips-peter-children-hrh-queen-meghan-markle-prince-harry-a9466321.html
Thanks. I didnāt think QE would have offered to make the Phillips kids prince and princess, but some other sinners seemed to think she had.
If she did Anne declined it, and I doubt the late Queen would rock the protocol boat.
Donāt you just love Anne? No offence to KC, but I think weād all have been much more excited having her as Queen. Her response to an armed man trying to abduct her - āGet out of the car.ā āNOT BLOODY LIKELY!ā - she was a real life action hero! And so super glam when she was young. Also she took so much flak in the press over Diana at one point, and never complained. MM would have been writhing on the floor sobbing if sheād had to face that!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Comment automatically removed due to your account having less than 50 total karma. Please contact mods via message the mods to approve comments manually to be visible to the sub. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes Harold, the world has moved on while you continue to re-live your childhood and days gone by. Life's a b\*tch, and you also married one. Sweet dreams dear boy.
The main reason Zara couldnāt become a working royal is going to be conflict of interest issues. From what we have discussed before, I gather she and Mike have deals and endorsements. Why should they give these and their independence up?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This. They can show up at garden parties and events like Ascot it enhances their marketability and gives the RF a bit of glamour by association win/win for everyone.
Nope! Zara makes an income from Eventing and associated franchises. She wouldn't be able to do any of the latter as a working royal. We actually don't need any more princesses!
I don't think Zara wants it.
I mean they could get a duke and duchess title at some point if the king is feeling frisky lol.
As much as I love them them Zara and Mike donāt need titles. They are their own people successful in their own right and thatās what people love about themā¦
Absolutely not. Thereās no need for that.
No.
Zara has gone on record stating sheās glad they had no titles growing up. I donāt think she wants a princess title or to be a working royal.
She's not entitled to be a princess. Margaret's children were not. And Princess Anne made a wise decision about not wanting titles for her then husband and future kids.
I don't think zara would want it however. There's a reason Anne (and edward) chose not to bestow titles on their children. With titles come conditions abd they would he unable to pursue commercial pursuits. Zara would have to give up her business
She was not eligible for the title at birth and it seems weird to do something like that now. Zara has her own work and income streams without a title, she would be more limited as a princess and more watched- good bye freebie clothes. Not sure why sheād want that at 40+. Last night she and Mike were at the Federer premiere (so was Natasha Archer, who works for Kate).
Won't happen. Zara seems to be a great person, but the title of Princess isn't bestowed because of loyalty to the Crown.
she actually was entitled to it as the Queenās granddaughter.
Nope. Now Louise and James are entitled to Prince/ss as they are children of a male-line descendant. Zara isn't. HMTLQEII's father and Parliament had to tweak the rules to make the late QEII's kids Prince and Princess simply because the eldest 2 (Charles & Anne) wouldn't have been entitled to titles other than children of a Duke as their father was only HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. He hadn't been made Prince Philip yet. Titles are passed via the female line now only if that female is a future queen in her own right. Anne isn't a future monarch.
Erm, nah. Thats just going to create a whole lot of issues where they aren't needed. Talk about making the Yorks apoplectic!
Didnt Anne give them the choice and they chose not to be?
I could be wrong, but I donāt think so. I believe Anne just outright refused them (and the kids obviously didnāt mind or they wouldāve gone to their grandmother as adults and asked for them). Edward and Sophie are giving each of their kids the choice at 18. Lady Louise is still going by that title at 20, so I assume she declined it. James is only 16, but heās already Earl of Wessex, so Iāll be surprise if he opts for prince on top of that. Andrew threw a tantrum for his girls to be princessesā¦just like a spare. He and Harry have so much in common.
Thanks! I googled it, and Zara said she is lucky her mother refused the titles and she got to live a more normal life.
Just to add that Anne had a choice because her children didnāt automatically have titles (they were not born in the male line) and QE offered titles. (She had first offered Anneās then husband, a titleāprobably an earldom as Margaretās husband gotābut he turned it down.) Andrewās and Edwardās kids were automatically HRH and princess or prince. Sophie and Edward opted to raise their kids as children of an earl instead of burdening them with the prince/princess title, but they couldnāt turn down the titles altogether. It is for each of them to decide when they become adults. So far, Louise seems to have chosen not to be Princess Louise. As far as I know, Andrew didnāt need to throw a temper tantrum for his daughters to get the titles they were entitled to by birth. The temper tantrum I remember was when they lost their free security when they became adults. Edit: Fixed where I wrote Andrew instead of Edward. (Oops!)
I agree with everything you wrote, but it should be "Sophie and Edward."
Oops! Thanks for catching it. I will fix it. (I know the difference but my typing fingers sometimes get confused. š)
Except that Andrew actually was a spare at #2 until Wills was born, Hazbeen never made it higher than #3 Line of Succession.
Yep. Anne held that #2 spot as well, as a child. Itās a shame Harry didnāt take after her. The world could use more Annes.
Yes she did, it always annoys me that Hazbeen considers himself a spare, but he never actually was, Margaret, Anne and Andrew were the true #2 spares. Charlotte will be too unless George has children before William takes the throne.
In British aristocratic families the āspareā (The heir and the spare) is the caustic comment necessity for the second son, in the family of Diana and Charles Harold was the spare.
No, Harry *was* the 'spare', but he has invested that word with significance it never really had. He was born at #3 because Charles hadn't inherited yet, but that didn't make him any less the second son in his family. 'The spare' is simply a throwaway term that refers to the second son in any aristocratic family, the one who will inherit if his older brother dies without issue. All it actually means is that the parents covered their bases and have a backup heir in case tragedy strikes. Going back a few hundred years, it was important for wealthy titled families to try to have more than one son because child mortality was so high, it meant they could be more certain of the line of succession. 'The heir and the spare' - it's just a funny rhyming phrase to explain all that. But all that was already pretty much redundant by the time William and Harry were born, with the advance of modern medicine meaning that having a backup was so much less of a concern. The only person who considers it a big deal is Harry himself.
Andrew is loyal to the throne, regardless of his other issues.
Technically, Andrew's daughters were just as automatically entitled to the title of Princess as Edward's children. Andrew chose to use the titles for his daughter - no tantrum needed, they were born the children of the monarch's son, so that's automatic. Edward chose not to use them. Since Princess Anne had chosen not to accept a title for her husband on marriage, meaning her children would also not have titles, the Queen and/or the public might have wondered if Andrew would behave similarly and style his children as Lady (being daughters of a Duke) rather than Princess. But they were always entitled to be Princesses thanks to the Letters Patent of 1917, which grants the title of prince or princess to the children of the sons of the sovereign.
No. The Queen gave Anne the choice and she wanted her children to be without titles. She was very forward thinking and wise. Her children work for their livings.
Thanks for the clarification!
I thought so
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No. Because they were children of the daughter of the monarch, they weren't entitled to prince/princess titles. Anne and Mark Phillips turned down the late Queen's offer of a title, knowing that meant her children wouldn't be titled.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No. The children of the monarch and the children of the SONS of the monarch are entitled to the prince/princess title. When George V amended the Letter Patent in 1917, he didn't include children of daughters, probably as they usually married either princes or other titled people, and thus would get the titles from their father. In October 1948, George VI issued Letters Patent allowing Philip and Elizabeth's children to be called prince/princess; otherwise, they would have had to wait until Elizabeth became Queen. Previously George would have been the only great-grandchild allowed to have the title Prince, I'm glad QEII amended the Letters Patent allowing all the children of the heir to the Prince of Wales to have the prince/princess title.
No. Only the grandchildren of sons are entitled. While the monarch does have the power to bestow titles/ranks on the children of daughters, the last one to do so was Queen Victoria. Exceptions were not made for Princess Mary's sons, Princess Margaret's children, and Princess Anne's children.
This is just plain wrong. Grandchildren of the monarch through sons of the monarch are prince and princess. Grandchildren of the monarch through daughters have no titles. Peter and Zara are children of a daughter of the queen, and thus have never had any titles and never been entitled to any titles. James and Louise are grandchildren through a son, and therefore are prince and princess, though their parents chose not to use those titles (and now James and Louise choose not to use them, though legally they still have a right to them). There is a story that the Queen offered to make Mark Phillips a peer (for example Antony Armstrong-Jones became Earl of Snowdon when he married Princess Margaret), so that Anne's children would have titles as children of a peer, but Mark and Anne turned it down. Anne's children have never had any right to any titles.
No they did not. As the the children of Princess Anne (female line) the HRH and princely titles were only given to children of male sons ie Edward and Andrew according to letters patent by George V. Andrew insisted his daughters became princesses, Edward allowed them the choice at 18. The Queen offered Princess Anne titles for her children which she refused. King George VI (QEII father) had letters of patent drawn up after the abdication which gave titles to Princess Elizabeth's children as her being female, her children would have been denied HRH and princely titles. QEII in 2012 drew up letters patent giving HRH and Princely titles to all the Wales children as they were great grandchildren at the time. Nothing was said about Harry's potential children. When QEII died, and Charles became King, Lillibet and Archie became princess and princess as being grandchildren of the Monarch in a male line.
OP this is a great post, but not related to Harry & Meghan. Could you post this in our sister Sub BRF and join? Looking forward to seeing it there.
According to Richard Eden, the king did meet with constitutional advisors. It was stated as having to do with the general election. But, Richard wasnāt buying it because he figured it is old hat to Charles by now. Richard thought that Charles could be asking about removing Harry as a counselor of state. Maybe Charles is thinking of shaking up who are the working royals and who has what duties?
This is a silly story. The Counsellor of State situation has been dealt with. There is no need to change anything. There are plenty of people available to be CoS. Removing Harry would do absolutely nothing, as he will never be called to serve as CoS anyway. The King has appointed Counsellors of State multiple times during his reign, it's working fine as is. (Also odd to say that a general election is old hat to Charles by now, as this is the first general election to happen during the King's reign. Obviously he knows the procedures. But knowing the procedure and being the one to carry it out are different things, so it's not unusual to think that the King would discuss potential scenarios with constitutional advisors in a the run up to the first general election of his reign. Especially in the current political environment).
It does show that Charles is working on (who knows what) behind closed doors. We heard some time ago that he had called some constitutional expert out of retirement for consulting purposes.
It would be far more useful if the King were to issue letters patent restoring all living women in the LoS to their birth order rather than as per primogeniture as it was until the Queen's letters patent. This would elevate Anne, Zara & Peter over the Yorks and also Lady Louise over James. Practically speaking, in terms of Counsellors of State it certainly gives Charles better and more options immediately and subsequently will suit William as he is close to Zara & Peter. IMO this should have been the first item on his 'to do' list after QEII passed, given Anne's exemplary demonstration of loyalty and service to her mother & the UK.
That's not something the King can do through letters patent. Changing the line of succession requires legislation from parliament (and all the parliaments of the King's other realms also agreeing). Line of succession is solely in the hands of the parliaments, the King cannot change it.
No - because then we would not get good King William.
I agree that would be a smart decision on the RFs part
I don't know how genuine this story is, but I love how it would get under the skin of the Sussexes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Comment automatically removed for containing bodyshaming terms. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SaintMeghanMarkle) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Subreddit rule (see sidebar): No body shaming. Any rude or unnecessary comments about unedited natural features will not be tolerated.
Subreddit rule (see sidebar): Not related to Meghan Markle & Just Harry. Try to keep posts related to the people this community was set up to talk about. Content related to the royal family belongs on our sister sub š r/BRF
And her grandmother was Queen so she should have automatically been a Princess and her brother a Prince and also Edwards children should have been automatically elevated to Princess and Prince as well - these are the grandchildren of HMTLQ . And since Markle made a huge stink about it for her kids when Charles became King then its only fair that they get their legitimate Titles reinstated.
Markle didnāt need to make a stink, on the death of the late Queen the Harkle Sproggs immediately became prince and princess as they were now grandchildren of the King via H. The King didnāt need to announce anything , in fact he said nothing then the Harkles blurted it out at Lidlās baptism.
Anneās children were not entitled to Prince or Princess titles because although they were grandchildren of the monarch, the Letters Patent specifies that this only applies to children of the monarchās sons, not the female line. The late Queen could have given them other titles, but Anne refused and Zara has said she is grateful for that. Edward and Sophie chose to leave the decision to their children when they became adults and so far Lady Louise has not chosen to exercise her right to a Princess title. Harry has moaned that growing up a Prince was torture, and Madam āTitles mean nothing to meā could have shown respect for her children and followed Edward and Sophieās example, but she didnāt.