Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[Welsh_Dragon]

Will Charlotte also then be Princess of Wales or will she remain Princess of Cambridge? It seems weird that their might be two, but both Beatrice and Eugenie were Princesses of York. Or maybe does Charlotte then become the Princess Royal?

The honour of being Prince of Wales is not heritable. It can be gifted by the Monach only to the heir apparent, but there have been long periods when we didn’t have a Prince.

 

[mousefan73]

She became officially known as Diana, Princess of Wales upon her divorce. What she lost was the HRH, which meant that she officially was no longer royal. Just like Saran Ferguson became Sarah, Duchess of York upon her divorce, but no longer HRH. They maintained titles, just not royal titles.

That is what some people want for Harry & Meghan. For them to be known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but to lose (not just "not use") their HRH, so they will officially no longer be royal & their actions will no longer reflect on the royal family.

I believe also the HRH also carries a bunch of behind the scenes, official things. It’s kind a like having a diplomatic passport. I believe there’s also official Secret Service government type security etc. I think you are then officially a representative of the state, representing the Queen.

Like when Diana continued her charity work after divorce these were not official “government” state events but private initiatives.

 

[Welsh_Dragon]

Princess Royal?

Again not automatic. It is a title gifted, at the discretion of the Monarch, to the eldest daughter. If you upset the Monarch, you may not get a title.

 

[mousefan73]

One other thing that was also one of the big speculation things back when Diana died, had she not lost her HRH status she will most likely have been under the watchful eye of official palace state security.not driven by some drunk guy and alive

 

[TLSnell1981]

I believe also the HRH also carries a bunch of behind the scenes, official things. It’s kind a like having a diplomatic passport. I believe there’s also official Secret Service government type security etc. I think you are then officially a representative of the state, representing the Queen.

Like when Diana continued her charity work after divorce these were not official “government” state events but private initiatives.

My thoughts...wouldn't Harry have been less likely to give up this level of protection if he was truly concerned with his family's safety?

 

[mousefan73]

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-pink-sapphire-cocktail-ring/
I could never pin point what it was about them that just annoys me and bingo! Here it is, see link.

so they are all righteous with their charity. Yet Meghan buys, or gets gifted a pink sapphire ring for “ influencing “. AND even the ring is “woke” because it’s SUSTAINABlE.

don’t know why link is not showing. Latest from People. Com. Pink ring

 

[mom2rtk]

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-pink-sapphire-cocktail-ring/
I could never pin point what it was about them that just annoys me and bingo! Here it is, see link.

so they are all righteous with their charity. Yet Meghan buys, or gets gifted a pink sapphire ring for “ influencing “. AND even the ring is “woke” because it’s SUSTAINABlE.

don’t know why link is not showing. Latest from People. Com. Pink ring

It's a special skill to leave such a massive carbon footprint yourself while lecturing everyone else on their (much much smaller) footprint.

 

[ronandannette]

Again not automatic. It is a title gifted, at the discretion of the Monarch, to the eldest daughter. If you upset the Monarch, you may not get a title.

She's an adorable little button right now but if the The Queen is still around when Charlotte hits her teens, she might be in trouble.

 

[NotUrsula]

It would have been an odd situation if Charles had married Camilla before his divorced former wife happened to die tragically: the legalities of having two Princesses of Wales simultaneously would even have baffled courtiers such as the ingenious Sir Tommy Lascelles.

They almost surely would not be married if Diana were still alive. Charles, as the Heir Apparent and a man who knows that his popularity is extremely iffy, would absolutely not have gone against the CofE's position on the Sovereign remarrying while an ex-spouse was still alive, and especially not if she were still single. He would have hated it, and I'm sure that he and Camilla would have arrived at a "discreet domestic arrangement" for the duration of Diana's life, but there is no way that the Queen would have given him permission to marry under those circumstances.

Also, FWIW, there is precedent for someone being Princess of Wales in her own right, though I've never been able to determine exactly why, since up until the recent repeal of the primogeniture laws, daughters of living Kings normally were never considered the Heir Apparent, because there was always the chance that their father might yet have a boy child. The daughter of George IV was Charlotte, Princess of Wales, whose mother, Caroline of Brunswick, also held that title from 1795-1820. Technically, the mother was THE Princess of Wales, and the daughter was Charlotte, Princess of Wales in court documents; there appears to be a subtle difference inherant in that wording. Charlotte, Princess of Wales married Prince Leopold of Belgium, but died in childbirth with her stillborn first child when she was only 21, in 1817. At that point her father was still the Prince of Wales. (As far as I can determine, Charlotte appears to have first been referred to by the title "Charlotte, Princess of Wales" when her father was appointed Regent in 1811; she was 6 years old then, and her parents were completely estranged, as they would remain until Princess Caroline's death, three years after that of her daughter Charlotte.)

 

[ronandannette]

They almost surely would not be married if Diana were still alive. Charles, as the Heir Apparent and a man who knows that his popularity is extremely iffy, would absolutely not have gone against the CofE's position on the Sovereign remarrying while an ex-spouse was still alive, and especially not if she were still single. He would have hated it, and I'm sure that he and Camilla would have arrived at a "discreet domestic arrangement" for the duration of Diana's life, but there is no way that the Queen would have given him permission to marry under those circumstances.

Also, FWIW, there is precedent for someone being Princess of Wales in her own right, though I've never been able to determine exactly why, since up until the recent repeal of the primogeniture laws, daughters of living Kings normally were never considered the Heir Apparent, because there was always the chance that their father might yet have a boy child. The daughter of George IV was Charlotte, Princess of Wales, whose mother, Caroline of Brunswick, also held that title from 1795-1820. Technically, the mother was THE Princess of Wales, and the daughter was Charlotte, Princess of Wales in court documents; there appears to be a subtle difference inherant in that wording. Charlotte, Princess of Wales married Prince Leopold of Belgium, but died in childbirth with her stillborn first child when she was only 21, in 1817. At that point her father was still the Prince of Wales. (As far as I can determine, Charlotte appears to have first been referred to by the title "Charlotte, Princess of Wales" when her father was appointed Regent in 1811; she was 6 years old then, and her parents were completely estranged, as they would remain until Princess Caroline's death, three years after that of her daughter Charlotte.)

Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive. Where is the logical consistency in that? HRH could not marry if his former wife was still alive but with her deceased he can go ahead and marry a divorced woman while her former husband still lives?

 

[TLSnell1981]

Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive. Where is the logical consistency in that? HRH could not marry if his former wife was still alive but with her deceased he can go ahead and marry a divorced woman while her former husband still lives?

I guess the people cared about Diana not so much Andrew Parker Bowles? But yeah a bit hypocritical.

 

[NotUrsula]

Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive. Where is the logical consistency in that? HRH could not marry if his former wife was still alive but with her deceased he can go ahead and marry a divorced woman while her former husband still lives?

The rule actually used to cut both ways when it was still a hard and fast rule (see: Bessie Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson Windsor.) It used to be that the C of E simply forbade any member of the Church to marry a divorced person whose former spouse was still living, but that has now been relaxed quite a bit, though it still requires a formal exception to be granted. As the titular Head of the Church, the sovereign (and the heir, of course) is still expected to hew to a higher standard. It's probably worth noting that both Anne and Charles did not have C of E sacramental marriages the second time around: Anne married in the Church of Scotland, and Charles and Camilla were married at the Windsor Registry Office; neat little maneuvers which relieved the Queen (and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who advises her on these things) of the dilemma of being asked to grant exceptions for them.

The poster who pointed out that Diana's popularity had a lot to do with that seeming violation of logic hit it directly on the head: her popularity was a weapon that she liked to wield against her ex, and to have her (in effect) "demoted" whilst still alive would have opened the door to a potential public relations nightmare.

 

[TLSnell1981]

The rule actually used to cut both ways when it was still a hard and fast rule (see: Bessie Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson Windsor.) It used to be that the C of E simply forbade any member of the Church to marry a divorced person whose former spouse was still living, but that has now been relaxed quite a bit, though it still requires a formal exception to be granted. As the titular Head of the Church, the sovereign (and the heir, of course) is still expected to hew to a higher standard. It's probably worth noting that both Anne and Charles did not have C of E sacramental marriages the second time around: Anne married in the Church of Scotland, and Charles and Camilla were married at the Windsor Registry Office; neat little maneuvers which relieved the Queen (and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who advises her on these things) of the dilemma of being asked to grant exceptions for them.

The poster who pointed out that Diana's popularity had a lot to do with that seeming violation of logic hit it directly on the head: her popularity was a weapon that she liked to wield against her ex, and to have her (in effect) "demoted" whilst still alive would have opened the door to a potential public relations nightmare.

I'd forgotten Charles and Camilla were married in a civil ceremony.

 

[person]

I'd forgotten Charles and Camilla were married in a civil ceremony.

At around the time when photos emerged that the register office in Windsor was storing stacked chairs in the room which was proposed to be used, it emerged also that The Queen deemed it an unsuitable place for her to appear.

 

[TLSnell1981]

At around the time when photos emerged that the register office in Windsor was storing stacked chairs in the room which was proposed to be used, it emerged also that The Queen deemed it an unsuitable place for her to appear.

I remember some of the details once it was mentioned. I imagine it was an excuse for the Queen not to be present. I'm would think she would be conflicted about their union.

 

[person]

The rule actually used to cut both ways when it was still a hard and fast rule (see: Bessie Wallis Warfield Spencer Simpson Windsor.) It used to be that the C of E simply forbade any member of the Church to marry a divorced person whose former spouse was still living, but that has now been relaxed quite a bit, though it still requires a formal exception to be granted. As the titular Head of the Church, the sovereign (and the heir, of course) is still expected to hew to a higher standard. It's probably worth noting that both Anne and Charles did not have C of E sacramental marriages the second time around: Anne married in the Church of Scotland, and Charles and Camilla were married at the Windsor Registry Office; neat little maneuvers which relieved the Queen (and the Archbishop of Canterbury, who advises her on these things) of the dilemma of being asked to grant exceptions for them.

The poster who pointed out that Diana's popularity had a lot to do with that seeming violation of logic hit it directly on the head: her popularity was a weapon that she liked to wield against her ex, and to have her (in effect) "demoted" whilst still alive would have opened the door to a potential public relations nightmare.

NotUrsula: An unofficial comment made years ago about what the preamble to legislation compelling King Edward VIII to abdicate might have looked like, if Edward had not cooperated with the Government in ostensibly abdicating voluntarily, suggested words such as these:

"Whereas Mrs. Simpson is incompatible with The King's majesty, and whereas The King wishes to marry Mrs. Simpson, be it therefore enacted...(etc.)"

 

[person]

I remember some of the details once it was mentioned. I imagine it was an excuse for the Queen not to be present. I'm would think she would be conflicted about their union.

TLSnell1981: Reminiscent of what happened when, after her divorce, Diana, Princess of Wales, who was Colonel-in-Chief of The Princess of Wales' Own Regiment, resigned as Colonel-in-Chief, it was reported:

"A spokesman for the Regiment declined to comment."

Meaning, in other words, "the less said, the better".

 

[person]

Andrew Parker Bowles is still alive. Where is the logical consistency in that? HRH could not marry if his former wife was still alive but with her deceased he can go ahead and marry a divorced woman while her former husband still lives?

As in going to the parish church: "(Read Romans 7) .... Here endeth the lesson."

 

[person]

I believe also the HRH also carries a bunch of behind the scenes, official things. It’s kind a like having a diplomatic passport. I believe there’s also official Secret Service government type security etc. I think you are then officially a representative of the state, representing the Queen.

Like when Diana continued her charity work after divorce these were not official “government” state events but private initiatives.

Diana annoyed a lot of influential people when she got involved with her anti-landmines campaign.

If she had still been HRH, there would have been official explanation of "what the Princess really meant".

In other words, between her divorce in 1996 and the fateful day in August 1997, she was a loose cannon, having declined official security at a time when vested interests worldwide were intensely annoyed with her. This is not to say that there is any firm evidence of her death not having been an accident, but in the circumstances she as an ex-HRH had been both constructively cut adrift (having, in brutal state terms, 'served her purpose' in any case) and she reciprocally declined official security but accepted it from the Ritz.

I strongly suspect that Diana did not truly understand the situation she was in. I strongly suspect also that others did.

 

[person]

My thoughts...wouldn't Harry have been less likely to give up this level of protection if he was truly concerned with his family's safety?

After what happened to his mother, he might reckon, a little paranoia might be healthy.

All rather sad.