Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Those of you who don’t give a toss, please move on. There’s plenty more, much of it substantially more important than this, to grind your teeth upon.
I’m getting a bit fed up with what’s become the current crise du jour, because–in the presence of a five-mile long, well-mannered queue which proves that the Britain of my youth is–somewhere on earth (oh wait…that would be in Britain)–still in existence, but whose story doesn’t make the sort of news beloved of the Twitter mobs), what could be more important than this question:
Are Archie and Lilibet entitled to be called Prince and Princess? Is King Charles mean enough to refuse permission for them to be called such? Is the British monarchy so racist that it can’t acknowledge its quadroons (no offence intended; that’s the recognized term) as part of the family? And what about Harry and Meghan? Are they so greedy, so grasping, so determined to make money off their royal connections that they would insist on these titles for their children even in the face of opposition and history?
People: Please take what my dear friend Glenda calls a “calm your a** down pill.” And regroup.
Here are the actual facts:
The grandchildren of a reigning monarch are entitled to be recognized as “Prince” and “Princess.” Archie and Lilibet are now entitled to be called such.
Pot-stirring flunkies such as Lady Colin Campbell, and GBNews’s Dan Wootton, throw out Prince Edward’s children (grandchildren of QEII) as examples to demonstrate that it’s not “automatic” that those grandchildren become Princes and Princesses.
But they’re wrong.
The only reason that Louise and James (Prince Edward’s two apparently delightful children) are not referred to as “Prince” and “Princess” is that their parents refused the use of the titles their children automatically inherited. As did the parents of two other of the Queen’s grandchildren, Princess Anne and Mark Phillips. Their children are referred to as Zara Tindall and Peter Phillips.
All four of these grandchildren of the late Queen had the option, on attaining their eighteenth birthday, of styling themselves as “Her/His Royal Highness, Princess/Prince So-and-So.”
(It should be noted that William’s and Kate’s children are referred to as “Prince” and “Princess” because direct line of inheritance, and that Prince Andrew’s and Sarah Ferguson’s children are referred to as Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie because Andrew and Fergie. What else would you expect? But that sorta makes my point, if you insist on comparing Andrew and Fergie with Anne and Mark and also with Edward and Sophie. (I’d suggest you don’t.)) All eight of the late Queen’s grandchildren could have styled themselves “Prince” or “Princess.” That four of them didn’t, was the decision of those children’s rather rational parents.
We’re still waiting on the decision of the youngest of the un “Princes,” James, Viscount Severn, who’s not eighteen yet, but Zara, Peter, and Louise seem to have dodged the bullet. I tend to think James will too.
Now, that’s the protocol. Here comes the subjective analysis:
Meghan’s a bully. Harry is a wuss. The two of them are manipulative narcissists. They’ve set the stage, with the able assistance of “The Oprah” (h/t Rush) with the completely false narrative that the only reason that Archie and Lilibet aren’t already “Prince/Princessy” is racism by the royal family. Actually, the tradition is that Harry (in his role as the “spare,” had children who were not in the direct line of succession, and that therefore his children (great-grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth) had no automatic right to call themselves Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess NutNut, or anything else.)**
I also seem to recall that Harry and Meghan–when Archie was born–announced that they’d like him to NOT receive a royal title. Does anyone else remember that?
Therefore, for Harry and Meghan to suddenly announce that they’d like their children to be known as “Prince Archie” and “Princess Lilibet” (shudder) will resound with hypocrisy and needy self-delusion. For those who haven’t completely lost the plot, at least.
As far as I know, Harry and Meghan haven’t yet made an issue of this. They might. But perhaps even they will have the decency to let this play out as it will and as it should. And what “as it should” means is that Harry and Meghan, as the “spare” parents of the grandchildren of the current monarch are the only two whose children inherit by birthright, the option to be called “Prince” or “Princess.” And that–should they want to follow in the rather egalitarian instincts of Princess Anne (mother of Zara and Peter) or those of Prince Edward (father of Louise and James) they won’t choose to burden their children with likely meaningless and irrelevant titles. (This inheritance business has–since the monarchy abolished male precedence in the line of succession in 2011, shortly before William and Kate’s firstborn arrived–changed significantly. Fortunately (traditionalists might celebrate), George was a boy.)
Princess Charlotte, however (bless her), and subsequent to Parliamentary law, gummed up the works. God save the Queen! (And Princess Charlotte.)
What that means is that Charlotte (who bears an uncanny physical resemblance to the late Queen, and who won my heart forever by her stance at the entrance to the chapel at St. James Palace, just before the christening of her younger brother, by stopping, turning around, holding up her hand and announcing to the slavering press corps, “You’re not coming,” became, per the 2011 law, the equal of her brothers in the line of succession. Should George inherit and then, God forbid, be lost without issue, Charlotte and her issue will inherit. Should both of them die, George without issue, and Charlotte with a son or daughter, that son or daughter will inherit. I can’t tell you what a sea change this was, as compared to the laws of succession in my childhood. And, for good or ill, how it pushed Harry down in the line of succession.
I express my gratitude for those who’ve queued because I couldn’t. Two of the comments have really moved me. The first was that of the old gentleman who cried, and who said, “My England is gone. I am an extinct species.” (No, darling. You are not.)
The second was the rather lengthy comment of a Commonwealth citizen who expressed her gratitude for the Queen of the Commonwealth more eloquently than just about any others could.
If I discover either or both of those comments in a format in which I can post them, I will.
God Save the King!
**Here’s the list of Queen Elizabeth’s great-grandchildren, together with their titles: Savannah Phillips, Isla Phillips, Prince George, Mia Tindall, Princess Charlotte, Prince Louis, Lena Tindall, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, August Brooksbank, Lucas Tindall, Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, Sienna Mapelli Mozzi. Perhaps you can see the pattern here. If so, show me the racism, please.Published in