re the Palace responding, similarity to 1930s era abdication.
There are striking differences. Mainly that H and M won't pine for readmittance to the gang, and are moving on. And the assholery isn't about a wilful royal wanting to do something, it's about the wilful royal family being the assholes.
I didn't find the interview an airing of dirty laundry. Rather as previously silent people, not allowed to speak, speaking openly. Both counter to the English trash tabloid press and to the family which did squat to help them. The non-UK opinion is favourable. One of your talk show hosts should be ashamed, but shame doesn't come easy to know-it-alls. Some guy named Pier who says M's mental health issues are made up. (Who'd name their kid after a dock? he should be thrown off one.)
Can someone answer: why would Archie their son be exclude from any titles or official protection? The couple indicated that this was told them while M was pregnant. Do younger children of kings' kids (Charles is to be king, right?) routinely not get titles, and not get official protection? That is, are grandchildren of Kings and Queens of England common people always without any security? without title? If true, the leaving of H & M sounds like what they call "constructive dismissal" from employment, where the conditions of the job are so awful that the only reasonable thing is to leave. Forced out.
The interview did not make the link, but it sure sounded obvious: Archie was to be considered different than other children. As a comparison do Andrew and Fergie's kid's have titles and protection? Princess Anne's? The link to the possible dark skin racism issues is inescapable. And it doesn't matter if it is strictly true or not. If "The Firm" excluded Archie and not anyone else, the linkage is made.
I find it hard to think of Meghan as *brown*, or *mixed race*, or whatever, even though the tabloids obviously think her as black-skinned, and black-hearted, as Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord of Mordor.
What the hell is the fuss about? She's a pleasant-looking young woman, with what appears to be the sort of colour many pale women spend £££ on in tanning salons to achieve, at the risk of bankruptcy, skin cancer etc.
I find it hard to think of Meghan as *brown*, or *mixed race*, or whatever, even though the tabloids obviously think her as black-skinned, and black-hearted, as Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord of Mordor.
What the hell is the fuss about? She's a pleasant-looking young woman, with what appears to be the sort of colour many pale women spend £££ on in tanning salons to achieve, at the risk of bankruptcy, skin cancer etc.
Ah - jealousy and envy, of course!
this is racist, FWIW.
Ah - sincere apologies if I've inadvertently offended. Reverse racism, I suppose, is what you mean?
I will refrain from digging myself into an even deeper hole by trying to explain myself more clearly...
re the Palace responding, similarity to 1930s era abdication.
There are striking differences. Mainly that H and M won't pine for readmittance to the gang, and are moving on. And the assholery isn't about a wilful royal wanting to do something, it's about the wilful royal family being the assholes.
I didn't find the interview an airing of dirty laundry. Rather as previously silent people, not allowed to speak, speaking openly. Both counter to the English trash tabloid press and to the family which did squat to help them. The non-UK opinion is favourable. One of your talk show hosts should be ashamed, but shame doesn't come easy to know-it-alls. Some guy named Pier who says M's mental health issues are made up. (Who'd name their kid after a dock? he should be thrown off one.)
Can someone answer: why would Archie their son be exclude from any titles or official protection? The couple indicated that this was told them while M was pregnant. Do younger children of kings' kids (Charles is to be king, right?) routinely not get titles, and not get official protection? That is, are grandchildren of Kings and Queens of England common people always without any security? without title? If true, the leaving of H & M sounds like what they call "constructive dismissal" from employment, where the conditions of the job are so awful that the only reasonable thing is to leave. Forced out.
The interview did not make the link, but it sure sounded obvious: Archie was to be considered different than other children. As a comparison do Andrew and Fergie's kid's have titles and protection? Princess Anne's? The link to the possible dark skin racism issues is inescapable. And it doesn't matter if it is strictly true or not. If "The Firm" excluded Archie and not anyone else, the linkage is made.
I did actually answer that in my earlier post. Also I believe the parents had the chance to make him Earl of Dumbarton but didn't.
(Also, Archie is not a grandchild of the monarch, he's is a great grandchild and out of the direct line of succession.)
Here is the link to Prince Harry's use of offensive racist language - plus mocking his grandmother and gay/queer people. He was sent on a diversity awareness course after it came to light but whether it worked is debatable, as evidenced by his appearance at a fancy dress party dressed as a nazi the following year and by this
I find it hard to think of Meghan as *brown*, or *mixed race*, or whatever, even though the tabloids obviously think her as black-skinned, and black-hearted, as Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord of Mordor.
What the hell is the fuss about? She's a pleasant-looking young woman, with what appears to be the sort of colour many pale women spend £££ on in tanning salons to achieve, at the risk of bankruptcy, skin cancer etc.
Ah - jealousy and envy, of course!
this is racist, FWIW.
Ah - sincere apologies if I've inadvertently offended. Reverse racism, I suppose, is what you mean?
No, it's not reverse racism -- it's racism, the regular kind.
I find it hard to think of Meghan as *brown*, or *mixed race*, or whatever, even though the tabloids obviously think her as black-skinned, and black-hearted, as Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord of Mordor.
What the hell is the fuss about? She's a pleasant-looking young woman, with what appears to be the sort of colour many pale women spend £££ on in tanning salons to achieve, at the risk of bankruptcy, skin cancer etc.
Ah - jealousy and envy, of course!
this is racist, FWIW.
Ah - sincere apologies if I've inadvertently offended. Reverse racism, I suppose, is what you mean?
I will refrain from digging myself into an even deeper hole by trying to explain myself more clearly...
You seem interested in understanding, I appreciate that. I've been in that spot, it's uncomfortable
Negating or downplaying a person's race is racist. It centers whiteness. The act assumes that white is default and somehow better. It's not. Wishing away her Blackness is ignoring an important part of her. And SHE gets to say she's Black - other people don't get to determine "How Black" she is.
Coming from an American perspective, at the beginning of a trial of a police officer for killing a Black man, this whole thread is quite eye-opening and a bit disturbing.
Can someone answer: why would Archie their son be exclude from any titles or official protection? The couple indicated that this was told them while M was pregnant. Do younger children of kings' kids (Charles is to be king, right?) routinely not get titles, and not get official protection?
Under Letters Patent issued in 1917, children and grandchildren (in the male line) of the sovereign get royal titles, as does the eldest grandson of the Prince of Wales. Shortly before Prince George's birth, The Queen amended these rules to grant royal titles to all of the children of the Duke of Cambridge, and not just Prince George.
The normal course of events would be for young Archie to be styled as the son of a Duke, and to be "promoted" to princely status when the Prince of Wales becomes King. The announcement at the time of his birth was that he wouldn't be styled as the son of a Duke, but would be plain Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. This was presented as the Duke and Duchess's preference, but that presentation doesn't mean much.
The Duke and Duchess may have been told that Archie wouldn't be a prince while the Duchess was pregnant, but the fact has been known by anyone who wanted to know it for the last hundred years.
It's entirely possible, with the desire to slim down the monarchy, that there was consideration given to revising the Letters Patent so that Archie would never be a prince. (cf. Lady Louise Windsor and Viscount Severn, who are the children of the Earl of Wessex, and do not use royal titles (although they are entitled to them, I suspect that neither will ever use a royal title, or take on royal duties of any significance.)) And it would be better to never make someone a prince than to decide that you want to strip their princely status from them...
I find it hard to think of Meghan as *brown*, or *mixed race*, or whatever, even though the tabloids obviously think her as black-skinned, and black-hearted, as Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord of Mordor.
What the hell is the fuss about? She's a pleasant-looking young woman, with what appears to be the sort of colour many pale women spend £££ on in tanning salons to achieve, at the risk of bankruptcy, skin cancer etc.
Ah - jealousy and envy, of course!
this is racist, FWIW.
Ah - sincere apologies if I've inadvertently offended. Reverse racism, I suppose, is what you mean?
No, it's not reverse racism -- it's racism, the regular kind.
I find it hard to think of Meghan as *brown*, or *mixed race*, or whatever, even though the tabloids obviously think her as black-skinned, and black-hearted, as Sauron the Great, the Dark Lord of Mordor.
What the hell is the fuss about? She's a pleasant-looking young woman, with what appears to be the sort of colour many pale women spend £££ on in tanning salons to achieve, at the risk of bankruptcy, skin cancer etc.
Ah - jealousy and envy, of course!
this is racist, FWIW.
Ah - sincere apologies if I've inadvertently offended. Reverse racism, I suppose, is what you mean?
I will refrain from digging myself into an even deeper hole by trying to explain myself more clearly...
You seem interested in understanding, I appreciate that. I've been in that spot, it's uncomfortable
Negating or downplaying a person's race is racist. It centers whiteness. The act assumes that white is default and somehow better. It's not. Wishing away her Blackness is ignoring an important part of her. And SHE gets to say she's Black - other people don't get to determine "How Black" she is.
Coming from an American perspective, at the beginning of a trial of a police officer for killing a Black man, this whole thread is quite eye-opening and a bit disturbing.
Points taken, and, once again, apologies for stupidly Putting My Foot In It. I will say no more, but thanks to you both for your comments.
Neither of Princess Anne's children are royal highnesses nor have titles, nor have they ever received royal protection. Zara Phillips/Tindale is quite well known as an Olympian married to a rugby player.
Neither of Prince Andrew's daughters, Eugenie and Beatrice, have had royal protection since 2011 and neither carry out royal duties.
Prince Edward's children, Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, are not royal princes and princesses but are titled. They also lost police protection in 2011.
(I knew the first bit, but had to look up the rest)
As a comparison do Andrew and Fergie's kid's have titles and protection? Princess Anne's? The link to the possible dark skin racism issues is inescapable. And it doesn't matter if it is strictly true or not. If "The Firm" excluded Archie and not anyone else, the linkage is made.
This is lazy thinking. Like I said, the issue of Archie's lack of princely title was most recently decided more than a century ago.
The children of the Princess Royal (Mr Peter Phillips and Mrs Mike Tindall) do not have royal titles, because those titles do not pass in the female line. The Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York have titles, but also have jobs, and will not pass titles to their children. None of them have full-time police protection.
Similarly, The Queen's nephew, the Earl of Snowdon, and her niece, Lady Sarah Chatto, don't have royal titles.
Archie does have a title. He could be Earl of Dunbarton, but his parents decided not to use it. They chose to have him called Mastrr Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. Prince is reserved for descendants of the next in line to the throne. It got tidied up when the law was changed to give the monarchs daughters equal rights to succeed as sons.
Can someone answer: why would Archie their son be exclude from any titles or official protection? The couple indicated that this was told them while M was pregnant. Do younger children of kings' kids (Charles is to be king, right?) routinely not get titles, and not get official protection? That is, are grandchildren of Kings and Queens of England common people always without any security? without title? If true, the leaving of H & M sounds like what they call "constructive dismissal" from employment, where the conditions of the job are so awful that the only reasonable thing is to leave. Forced out.
The interview did not make the link, but it sure sounded obvious: Archie was to be considered different than other children. As a comparison do Andrew and Fergie's kid's have titles and protection? Princess Anne's? The link to the possible dark skin racism issues is inescapable. And it doesn't matter if it is strictly true or not. If "The Firm" excluded Archie and not anyone else, the linkage is made.
Re titles: I believe this was explained upthread, but the rule (from 1915 letters patent of George V) is that by default a princely title is given to the monarch's children, and to children of the monarch's sons. Great-grandsons have no automatic right to a princely title, so by default Archie could be a prince at the accession of Charles III, but not before that.
But the Queen can create ad hoc princes (so to speak) if she wants - which is how William's children came to be princes, even though they are great-grandsons. So the obvious question is: why William but not Harry? If you think the answer is racism, then that means the Queen is racist. Which is entirely possible, but Meghan has explicitly said she has no problem with the Queen. But then it's not clear who she does have a problem with - George V?
Re security: for obvious reasons there isn't a publicly available list of who gets round-the-clock security and who doesn't, but I believe the list is very small - AIUI even Cabinet ministers don't automatically get it unless they're in an obvious 'target' role (e.g. Defence). But that decision would reside with MI5 rather than the Royal Family.
AIUI the title of prince/princess (except in direct line of succession) only goes to the children or grandchildren of the reigning sovereign.
Before Prince George was born, the Queen issued letters patent to ensure all the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children would have the titles of prince and princess, but they are children of the future monarch.
If nothing else changed, Archie would receive the title of ‘Prince’ on the accession of Charles to the throne, but apparently this was not going to happen because of Charles’s desire to slim down the monarchy.
As this is reported in the Guardian (not known for favouring royalty) and is based on publicly available information, I think it is reliable.
Of course the Duke and/or Duchess if Sussex may have been unaware of it.
Maybe there aren't quite so many hangers-on as one might have supposed. If The Firm is being reduced in size (at least as far as the public purse is concerned), so much the better.
It'll make establishing a Republic easier, one day...
I try to offer a nuanced view that carefully considers the claims highlighted in the interview.
I think that as much as the interview seems damning of the Firm, the Royal Family can mount a reasonable defense against some of the claims.
The claim about Prince Harry being financially cut off needs clarifying. The specific issue was British taxpayer money that funded the work of the Royals. If Harry and Meghan are not working as senior royals, there is an argument as to whether or not the British tax payer should be footing the bill. Harry has substantive resources from his inheritance from his mother, and he and Meghan can certainly afford the upper class lifestyle that they enjoy, and that includes paying for his own security. It's going to be hilariously ironic if lefty republicans are going to argue that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should be funded by the Taxpayer especially considering that they aren't living in the UK and not working as senior royals.
The claim about Archie not receiving a royal title is entirely defensible. As noted before, according to the Letters Patent, the only persons guaranteed a royal title are children and grandchildren of the Sovereign, Archie being a great grand child is not guaranteed a royal title, and it should be noted that Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn are not styled as royal princes, even though they are grandchildren of Elizabeth. And if the rumors are true that the Prince of Wales would like a scaled down Royal Family, it might be a good idea to only grant titles to those in the immediate line of succession, i.e. the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
The issues about not providing Meghan support and not defending her against the British tabloid press are I think the most damning. The first needs a rethink on the Royal Family's part on how to provide support to people entering it through marriage with the proviso, that the entire raison d'etre of the system is to support and uphold the Sovereign, full stop. Meghan's lack of support from the institution is the most notable commonality with the situation of the late Diana. The second is a bit more difficult and articulated very well by Prince Harry in the interview, speaks to the rather disturbing symbiotic relationship between the Royal Family and the British Press.
But the Queen can create ad hoc princes (so to speak) if she wants - which is how William's children came to be princes, even though they are great-grandsons. So the obvious question is: why William but not Harry?
From the 1917 Letters Patent: "and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes."
Prince George was always going to be a prince. The Queen made a change to ensure that all the Cambridge children would have royal titles from birth (otherwise, we'd have Prince George of Cambridge, Lady Charlotte Windsor, and Lord Louis Windsor).
Why not Harry? the Cambridge kids are, in the fullness of time, expected to be the brother and sister of the King. The Sussex kids will be the King's cousins.
So did the Archbishop of Canterbury really perform a fake wedding in front of the TV cameras? After marrying Harry and Meghan for real in a private ceremony three days before?
Welby has broken Canon law whichever way you look at it. A case for the new CDM?
The present King of Belgium is Philippe, who succeeded his father, Albert II, when the latter abdicated in 2013.
FWIW, @Forthview had it right that his proper title is King of the Belgians (Koning der Belgen, Roi des Belges, König der Belgier).
I have little if anything to add to this discussion—I haven’t seen the interview—but I’m finding this thread very interesting reading.
There are very few members of the Royal Family funded by the Sovereign Grant, the monies provided by the UK Government since 2012. A number of the family are funded by the Queen from her personal fortune, including Princess Anne, Princes Andrew and Edward, see article here, which also discusses how much Prince Harry is worth and how much he has inherited.
In this case, they seem to have made a private exchange of vows and then gone to church for the legal bit. Some people might be a bit sniffy about it but I can't see that it's illegal. Has Welby broken some CofE rules? I'm not CofE, but I would imagine he's fairly well up them...
It could be that the couple wanted to make their own vows to each other, but that's not an option in a C of E wedding. But a couple are perfectly at liberty to make promises to each other in the presence of a clergyman.
That's true. But it behoves said clergy it make it clear that any exchange of vows outside of the service is NOT in any way a marriage or part thereof.
I would actually go further and say that the clergy avoid any involvement with extra-service vows, to avoid muddying the waters. If the couple want additional vows, they can make them without clergy needing to be present (or they could just add them to the wedding service - nothing to stop that as long as you don't change the official vows).
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
(Disclaimer: I haven't seen the interview; I won't be watching it; I have no intention of reading the press reports.)
So did the Archbishop of Canterbury really perform a fake wedding in front of the TV cameras? After marrying Harry and Meghan for real in a private ceremony three days before?
Welby has broken Canon law whichever way you look at it. A case for the new CDM?
CDM?
<snip>
Clergy Discipline Measure, I think. The official way of ticking off C of E clergy who do naughty things.
Regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury, the brou-ha-ha about the private ceremony may be an example of a change to the ABC's role that I think is long overdue. Is it absolutely necessary for the ABC to be the senior chaplain of the Royal Family?
I can understand the ABC as the prelate that crowns the Monarch, that is a long standing tradition, but why is it his or her role to preside at royal baptisms and royal weddings? No one cares about who the officiant is at a royal wedding, so why can't for example, the Dean of Westminster Abbey or the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral preside at these royal functions?
I'm afraid I'm less devout. Nae King! Nae Quin! We will nae be fooled again!
I'm just interested in why we're so comfortable in giving so much power and influence to the castled equivalent of the Mitchell family. (Eastenders allusion).
They might represent our past, but they're not our future.
So did the Archbishop of Canterbury really perform a fake wedding in front of the TV cameras? After marrying Harry and Meghan for real in a private ceremony three days before?
Welby has broken Canon law whichever way you look at it. A case for the new CDM?
CDM?
<snip>
Clergy Discipline Measure, I think. The official way of ticking off C of E clergy who do naughty things.
More like "the official way of inflicting needless harm on C of E clergy, causing some to attempt suicide." But don't worry - it appears that all bishops (and above) get a free pass.
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
I can see why someone might want to make private promises beforehand, given all the pageantry and showmanship associated with something like a royal wedding, although it's worth pointing out that the degree of showmanship and pageantry on display was optional. A low-key wedding would have been possible.
I'm afraid I'm less devout. Nae King! Nae Quin! We will nae be fooled again!
I'm just interested in why we're so comfortable in giving so much power and influence to the castled equivalent of the Mitchell family. (Eastenders allusion).
They might represent our past, but they're not our future.
No, but the dear Queen Mum had such a lovely smile...why, Merrie England wouldn't be the same without the Royal Family to show us how to live properly, bringing up our children in the fear of the Lord!
I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
For clarity, I take the "real" wedding as the civil one because the civil wedding is the thing that actually changes things in practical terms (such as taxation, inheritance, etc.).
That said, on the counselling course I did, the functional benchmark for a couple being in a long-term relationship was whether or not they shared washing-machine loads, and I think that benchmark has much to recommend it.
I'm afraid I'm less devout. Nae King! Nae Quin! We will nae be fooled again!
I'm just interested in why we're so comfortable in giving so much power and influence to the castled equivalent of the Mitchell family. (Eastenders allusion).
I can understand the ABC as the prelate that crowns the Monarch, that is a long standing tradition, but why is it his or her role to preside at royal baptisms and royal weddings? No one cares about who the officiant is at a royal wedding, so why can't for example, the Dean of Westminster Abbey or the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral preside at these royal functions?
I think the Dean of Windsor presided over the televised service.
FWIW as Bishop's Finger tells us Philippe de Belgique who married a previous non-royal,
Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz is the King of the Belgians. Baudoin died childless in 1993 and was succeeded by his brother, Albert who abdicated when he thought he was too old to be king.
In an interesting ? twist, it was proved fairly recently through DNA tests that Albert had a daughter conceived out of wedlock. The daughter has had since 1st October 2020 the legal right to the title Son Altesse Royale,Princesse Delphine de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha. As far as I know she receives no money from the state, no security on the part of the state and no direct contact with the Belgian royal family.
Apparently Princess Delphine is now directly in contact with the Belgian royals and they are "building their relationship." Belgian princes are generally speaking not very visible nor threatened, and no longer get seats in the Senate, so I suppose she just goes about her business as usual. She might get the little security alert signal thingie, perhaps.
Regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury, the brou-ha-ha about the private ceremony may be an example of a change to the ABC's role that I think is long overdue. Is it absolutely necessary for the ABC to be the senior chaplain of the Royal Family?
I can understand the ABC as the prelate that crowns the Monarch, that is a long standing tradition, but why is it his or her role to preside at royal baptisms and royal weddings? No one cares about who the officiant is at a royal wedding, so why can't for example, the Dean of Westminster Abbey or the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral preside at these royal functions?
The next Monarch of the UK will have been married at Windsor registry office.
That said, on the counselling course I did, the functional benchmark for a couple being in a long-term relationship was whether or not they shared washing-machine loads, and I think that benchmark has much to recommend it.
I've not heard that one before, but I see where it's going. I've seen various other benchmarks about the degree to which a couple's lives are intermingled (shared finances, shared ownership of things, and so on), and they're all reasonable, and you can quibble with all of them.
(When I do the washing, each kid gets their own load, because it makes sorting the washing afterwards easier. Mrs C and I do share washing-machine loads, but I don't imbue that with much meaning - it's easy to sort our clothes, because nothing I wear looks like anything she wears. If we wore things that were more similar, I'd be more inclined to have a second washing basket and keep them separate.)
As a comparison do Andrew and Fergie's kid's have titles and protection? Princess Anne's? The link to the possible dark skin racism issues is inescapable. And it doesn't matter if it is strictly true or not. If "The Firm" excluded Archie and not anyone else, the linkage is made.
This is lazy thinking. Like I said, the issue of Archie's lack of princely title was most recently decided more than a century ago.
The children of the Princess Royal (Mr Peter Phillips and Mrs Mike Tindall) do not have royal titles, because those titles do not pass in the female line. The Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York have titles, but also have jobs, and will not pass titles to their children. None of them have full-time police protection.
Similarly, The Queen's nephew, the Earl of Snowdon, and her niece, Lady Sarah Chatto, don't have royal titles.
It's not lazy to not know the rules of titles in a foreign country.
"...The Queen's nephew, the Earl of Snowdon, and her niece, Lady Sarah Chatto, don't have royal titles."
This sounds like a contradiction. So earl and lady aren't royal titles? They're something else?
What I';m reading about Archie not having protection and a title is contrary to what the couple said in the interview. I do not think it is accurate from what they said, that the couple decided against using a title for their son. This may be represented as that, but it is not what they said on interview. Additionally their indication that safety was an issue, as they've received death threats. Perhaps entitlement to security protection takes into account only official roles and issues (this sound like the way the royal family operates), and ignores the dynamic risks when threats are made?
As they discussed in the interview, some of this is just a loaded piece of toast.
"...The Queen's nephew, the Earl of Snowdon, and her niece, Lady Sarah Chatto, don't have royal titles."
This sounds like a contradiction. So earl and lady aren't royal titles? They're something else?
Yes. They are something else. Not all titles are royal titles.
What I';m reading about Archie not having protection and a title is contrary to what the couple said in the interview. ... Additionally their indication that safety was an issue, as they've received death threats. Perhaps entitlement to security protection takes into account only official roles and issues (this sound like the way the royal family operates), and ignores the dynamic risks when threats are made?
Very few British Royals get police protection. Most are without or pay for it themselves if they feel the need. There was a big shake-up in 2011 and 2012 that cut public funding to the Royal Family. See the links I gave above.
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
But the whole system in the C of E is different to that in France. The C of E has held tightly to its right to be the purveyor of legal marriages in all its churches. If you go to a registry office for the legal bits, it is abundantly clear that any event in church afterwards is "only" a blessing and does not claim to be a legal wedding. As such, there are certain things you cannot do in such a service (essentially the legal bits like "Do you... take ..."). From what I am hearing here, the ABC collaborated in something that, had it been done by a parish priest, would have resulted in a tap on the shoulder from a distinctly displeased archdeacon.
I can see why someone might want to make private promises beforehand, given all the pageantry and showmanship associated with something like a royal wedding, although it's worth pointing out that the degree of showmanship and pageantry on display was optional. A low-key wedding would have been possible.
Agreed - in a way. If a couple want to do something privately beforehand, that is their prerogative. They can make any promises to one another that they want. But if I were the priest taking the wedding service, I wouldn't get involved in such a private event - precisely because of the ease with which it could be misunderstood by the couple and/or by others. The moment that a couple start saying that such a private event was their "real" wedding and the public ceremony was "just" something for the viewers, you know that you're in real trouble as a C of E priest.
It's not lazy to not know the rules of titles in a foreign country.
No, but it's lazy to assume that the different treatment of the children of the Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge is because of racism, which is what you did.
Unless you think that George V was a seer, and carefully ensured that there wouldn't be a part-black prince more than a century down the road, in which case it wouldn't be lazy - it would be completely batshit crazy.
It's also the case that the suggestion that Prince Harry's children perhaps shouldn't ever have royal titles was floating around long before he'd met Meghan Markle, as part of the general "slim down the monarchy" concept.
"...The Queen's nephew, the Earl of Snowdon, and her niece, Lady Sarah Chatto, don't have royal titles."
This sounds like a contradiction. So earl and lady aren't royal titles? They're something else?
Yes, that's right. They're aristocratic titles, but not royal ones.
Lady Sarah is "Lady Sarah" because she's the daughter of an Earl. The fact that the Earl in question was the husband of Princess Margaret isn't relevant to that. It's also true that the first Earl of Snowdon was plain old Antony Armstrong-Jones before he married the Queen's sister, but his title wasn't royal - just aristocratic.
What I';m reading about Archie not having protection and a title is contrary to what the couple said in the interview. I do not think it is accurate from what they said, that the couple decided against using a title for their son.
Archie is entitled to be styled as the son of a Duke. The eldest son of a Duke doesn't have a substantive title, but is by courtesy addressed by his father's secondary title. In the case of young Archie, he would be styled as the Earl of Dumbarton (cf. Viscount Severn, the son of the Earl of Wessex). When his name was announced, Buckingham Palace indicated that the Duke and Duchess had chosen not to style their son this way.
Perhaps entitlement to security protection takes into account only official roles and issues (this sound like the way the royal family operates), and ignores the dynamic risks when threats are made?
Someone mentioned upthread that the most recent review stripped regular police protection from a number of minor royals, such as the York princesses. This is all part of a general desire for a slimmed-down "modern" royal family. You really can't have it both ways.
I am, of course, not privy to any threat assessment concerning the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's children, and wouldn't talk about it if I was, but it is well within the bounds of plausibility to imagine both that the couple received death threats, and that the threats were not deemed credible.
Additionally their indication that safety was an issue, as they've received death threats. Perhaps entitlement to security protection takes into account only official roles and issues (this sound like the way the royal family operates), and ignores the dynamic risks when threats are made?
If there is a serious threat to life then they are entitled to the same level of protection from the police as any other citizen who faces a death threat.
What we are talking about is permanent round-the-clock security, paid for by the taxpayer, that you get without any specific threat, purely because of who you are. No minor royals get that AFAICT.
"...The Queen's nephew, the Earl of Snowdon, and her niece, Lady Sarah Chatto, don't have royal titles."
This sounds like a contradiction. So earl and lady aren't royal titles? They're something else?
Yes. They are something else. Not all titles are royal titles.
What I';m reading about Archie not having protection and a title is contrary to what the couple said in the interview. ... Additionally their indication that safety was an issue, as they've received death threats. Perhaps entitlement to security protection takes into account only official roles and issues (this sound like the way the royal family operates), and ignores the dynamic risks when threats are made?
Very few British Royals get police protection. Most are without or pay for it themselves if they feel the need. There was a big shake-up in 2011 and 2012 that cut public funding to the Royal Family. See the links I gave above.
My understanding is that Princess Eugenia and Princess Beatrice, even though they are styled as "Princess" do not have police protection.
It's not lazy to not know the rules of titles in a foreign country.
No, but it's lazy to assume that the different treatment of the children of the Duke of Sussex and Duke of Cambridge is because of racism, which is what you did.
No. That's not what I did. It is what H & M's interview leads directly to. I repeated it. The child did not get a title, the child thus would not have security protection. The child is treated differently than other children, and race has been directly brought up in the context of. That's from them.
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
But the whole system in the C of E is different to that in France. The C of E has held tightly to its right to be the purveyor of legal marriages in all its churches. If you go to a registry office for the legal bits, it is abundantly clear that any event in church afterwards is "only" a blessing and does not claim to be a legal wedding.
But surely what a couple might consider their “real” wedding doesn’t have to be the same as what the state considers the “legal” wedding.
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
But the whole system in the C of E is different to that in France. The C of E has held tightly to its right to be the purveyor of legal marriages in all its churches. If you go to a registry office for the legal bits, it is abundantly clear that any event in church afterwards is "only" a blessing and does not claim to be a legal wedding.
But surely what a couple might consider their “real” wedding doesn’t have to be the same as what the state considers the “legal” wedding.
And the actual practical outworking of this "attack" and "weakening" will be what, beyond the 14th root of bugger all?
Gah. The whole thing reeks of the pointlessness of the whole charade of placing people on pedestals because of accidents of birth. It's 2021 ffs, not 1421.
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
But the whole system in the C of E is different to that in France. The C of E has held tightly to its right to be the purveyor of legal marriages in all its churches. If you go to a registry office for the legal bits, it is abundantly clear that any event in church afterwards is "only" a blessing and does not claim to be a legal wedding.
But surely what a couple might consider their “real” wedding doesn’t have to be the same as what the state considers the “legal” wedding.
If you marry according to the rites and ceremonies of the CofE it does.
Comments
There are striking differences. Mainly that H and M won't pine for readmittance to the gang, and are moving on. And the assholery isn't about a wilful royal wanting to do something, it's about the wilful royal family being the assholes.
I didn't find the interview an airing of dirty laundry. Rather as previously silent people, not allowed to speak, speaking openly. Both counter to the English trash tabloid press and to the family which did squat to help them. The non-UK opinion is favourable. One of your talk show hosts should be ashamed, but shame doesn't come easy to know-it-alls. Some guy named Pier who says M's mental health issues are made up. (Who'd name their kid after a dock? he should be thrown off one.)
Can someone answer: why would Archie their son be exclude from any titles or official protection? The couple indicated that this was told them while M was pregnant. Do younger children of kings' kids (Charles is to be king, right?) routinely not get titles, and not get official protection? That is, are grandchildren of Kings and Queens of England common people always without any security? without title? If true, the leaving of H & M sounds like what they call "constructive dismissal" from employment, where the conditions of the job are so awful that the only reasonable thing is to leave. Forced out.
The interview did not make the link, but it sure sounded obvious: Archie was to be considered different than other children. As a comparison do Andrew and Fergie's kid's have titles and protection? Princess Anne's? The link to the possible dark skin racism issues is inescapable. And it doesn't matter if it is strictly true or not. If "The Firm" excluded Archie and not anyone else, the linkage is made.
So why did you (rhetorically) ask him why he made racist remarks? You said *Harry, Why did you make racist remarks when you were in the army ?*
That seems to me to suggest that you think he is, or may be, racist.
@Eirenist said *Conflict makes news, and the British media feeds off it*.
Alas, too true.
this is racist, FWIW.
Ah - sincere apologies if I've inadvertently offended. Reverse racism, I suppose, is what you mean?
I will refrain from digging myself into an even deeper hole by trying to explain myself more clearly...
I did actually answer that in my earlier post. Also I believe the parents had the chance to make him Earl of Dumbarton but didn't.
(Also, Archie is not a grandchild of the monarch, he's is a great grandchild and out of the direct line of succession.)
No, it's not reverse racism -- it's racism, the regular kind.
You seem interested in understanding, I appreciate that. I've been in that spot, it's uncomfortable
Negating or downplaying a person's race is racist. It centers whiteness. The act assumes that white is default and somehow better. It's not. Wishing away her Blackness is ignoring an important part of her. And SHE gets to say she's Black - other people don't get to determine "How Black" she is.
Coming from an American perspective, at the beginning of a trial of a police officer for killing a Black man, this whole thread is quite eye-opening and a bit disturbing.
Under Letters Patent issued in 1917, children and grandchildren (in the male line) of the sovereign get royal titles, as does the eldest grandson of the Prince of Wales. Shortly before Prince George's birth, The Queen amended these rules to grant royal titles to all of the children of the Duke of Cambridge, and not just Prince George.
The normal course of events would be for young Archie to be styled as the son of a Duke, and to be "promoted" to princely status when the Prince of Wales becomes King. The announcement at the time of his birth was that he wouldn't be styled as the son of a Duke, but would be plain Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. This was presented as the Duke and Duchess's preference, but that presentation doesn't mean much.
The Duke and Duchess may have been told that Archie wouldn't be a prince while the Duchess was pregnant, but the fact has been known by anyone who wanted to know it for the last hundred years.
It's entirely possible, with the desire to slim down the monarchy, that there was consideration given to revising the Letters Patent so that Archie would never be a prince. (cf. Lady Louise Windsor and Viscount Severn, who are the children of the Earl of Wessex, and do not use royal titles (although they are entitled to them, I suspect that neither will ever use a royal title, or take on royal duties of any significance.)) And it would be better to never make someone a prince than to decide that you want to strip their princely status from them...
Points taken, and, once again, apologies for stupidly Putting My Foot In It. I will say no more, but thanks to you both for your comments.
Neither of Prince Andrew's daughters, Eugenie and Beatrice, have had royal protection since 2011 and neither carry out royal duties.
Prince Edward's children, Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn, are not royal princes and princesses but are titled. They also lost police protection in 2011.
(I knew the first bit, but had to look up the rest)
This is lazy thinking. Like I said, the issue of Archie's lack of princely title was most recently decided more than a century ago.
The children of the Princess Royal (Mr Peter Phillips and Mrs Mike Tindall) do not have royal titles, because those titles do not pass in the female line. The Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York have titles, but also have jobs, and will not pass titles to their children. None of them have full-time police protection.
Similarly, The Queen's nephew, the Earl of Snowdon, and her niece, Lady Sarah Chatto, don't have royal titles.
Re titles: I believe this was explained upthread, but the rule (from 1915 letters patent of George V) is that by default a princely title is given to the monarch's children, and to children of the monarch's sons. Great-grandsons have no automatic right to a princely title, so by default Archie could be a prince at the accession of Charles III, but not before that.
But the Queen can create ad hoc princes (so to speak) if she wants - which is how William's children came to be princes, even though they are great-grandsons. So the obvious question is: why William but not Harry? If you think the answer is racism, then that means the Queen is racist. Which is entirely possible, but Meghan has explicitly said she has no problem with the Queen. But then it's not clear who she does have a problem with - George V?
Re security: for obvious reasons there isn't a publicly available list of who gets round-the-clock security and who doesn't, but I believe the list is very small - AIUI even Cabinet ministers don't automatically get it unless they're in an obvious 'target' role (e.g. Defence). But that decision would reside with MI5 rather than the Royal Family.
Before Prince George was born, the Queen issued letters patent to ensure all the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children would have the titles of prince and princess, but they are children of the future monarch.
If nothing else changed, Archie would receive the title of ‘Prince’ on the accession of Charles to the throne, but apparently this was not going to happen because of Charles’s desire to slim down the monarchy.
As this is reported in the Guardian (not known for favouring royalty) and is based on publicly available information, I think it is reliable.
Of course the Duke and/or Duchess if Sussex may have been unaware of it.
Maybe there aren't quite so many hangers-on as one might have supposed. If The Firm is being reduced in size (at least as far as the public purse is concerned), so much the better.
It'll make establishing a Republic easier, one day...
I think that as much as the interview seems damning of the Firm, the Royal Family can mount a reasonable defense against some of the claims.
The claim about Prince Harry being financially cut off needs clarifying. The specific issue was British taxpayer money that funded the work of the Royals. If Harry and Meghan are not working as senior royals, there is an argument as to whether or not the British tax payer should be footing the bill. Harry has substantive resources from his inheritance from his mother, and he and Meghan can certainly afford the upper class lifestyle that they enjoy, and that includes paying for his own security. It's going to be hilariously ironic if lefty republicans are going to argue that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex should be funded by the Taxpayer especially considering that they aren't living in the UK and not working as senior royals.
The claim about Archie not receiving a royal title is entirely defensible. As noted before, according to the Letters Patent, the only persons guaranteed a royal title are children and grandchildren of the Sovereign, Archie being a great grand child is not guaranteed a royal title, and it should be noted that Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn are not styled as royal princes, even though they are grandchildren of Elizabeth. And if the rumors are true that the Prince of Wales would like a scaled down Royal Family, it might be a good idea to only grant titles to those in the immediate line of succession, i.e. the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
The issues about not providing Meghan support and not defending her against the British tabloid press are I think the most damning. The first needs a rethink on the Royal Family's part on how to provide support to people entering it through marriage with the proviso, that the entire raison d'etre of the system is to support and uphold the Sovereign, full stop. Meghan's lack of support from the institution is the most notable commonality with the situation of the late Diana. The second is a bit more difficult and articulated very well by Prince Harry in the interview, speaks to the rather disturbing symbiotic relationship between the Royal Family and the British Press.
From the 1917 Letters Patent: "and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes."
Prince George was always going to be a prince. The Queen made a change to ensure that all the Cambridge children would have royal titles from birth (otherwise, we'd have Prince George of Cambridge, Lady Charlotte Windsor, and Lord Louis Windsor).
Why not Harry? the Cambridge kids are, in the fullness of time, expected to be the brother and sister of the King. The Sussex kids will be the King's cousins.
FWIW, @Forthview had it right that his proper title is King of the Belgians (Koning der Belgen, Roi des Belges, König der Belgier).
I have little if anything to add to this discussion—I haven’t seen the interview—but I’m finding this thread very interesting reading.
See also the Royal Finances page
That's true. But it behoves said clergy it make it clear that any exchange of vows outside of the service is NOT in any way a marriage or part thereof.
I would actually go further and say that the clergy avoid any involvement with extra-service vows, to avoid muddying the waters. If the couple want additional vows, they can make them without clergy needing to be present (or they could just add them to the wedding service - nothing to stop that as long as you don't change the official vows).
From what I'm reading here, AB Welby seems to been ill-advised if he took part in a private ceremony that the couple have come to regard as their "real" wedding.
(Disclaimer: I haven't seen the interview; I won't be watching it; I have no intention of reading the press reports.)
Clergy Discipline Measure, I think. The official way of ticking off C of E clergy who do naughty things.
I can understand the ABC as the prelate that crowns the Monarch, that is a long standing tradition, but why is it his or her role to preside at royal baptisms and royal weddings? No one cares about who the officiant is at a royal wedding, so why can't for example, the Dean of Westminster Abbey or the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral preside at these royal functions?
I'm afraid I'm less devout. Nae King! Nae Quin! We will nae be fooled again!
I'm just interested in why we're so comfortable in giving so much power and influence to the castled equivalent of the Mitchell family. (Eastenders allusion).
They might represent our past, but they're not our future.
More like "the official way of inflicting needless harm on C of E clergy, causing some to attempt suicide." But don't worry - it appears that all bishops (and above) get a free pass.
Maybe. But I'm pretty relaxed about what a couple regards as their "real" wedding. I had a similar argument with @Eutychus about a couple who preferred to view the blessing of their marriage in a church in France as their "real" wedding, rather than the administrative process with the mayor. I have friends (a lesbian couple) who celebrate three different wedding anniversaries, commemorating three different ceremonies with different legal statuses. I have friends who consider that they've been married since the first time they had sex, and regard the legal process as entirely an afterthought.
I can see why someone might want to make private promises beforehand, given all the pageantry and showmanship associated with something like a royal wedding, although it's worth pointing out that the degree of showmanship and pageantry on display was optional. A low-key wedding would have been possible.
No, but the dear Queen Mum had such a lovely smile...why, Merrie England wouldn't be the same without the Royal Family to show us how to live properly, bringing up our children in the fear of the Lord!
That said, on the counselling course I did, the functional benchmark for a couple being in a long-term relationship was whether or not they shared washing-machine loads, and I think that benchmark has much to recommend it.
Sodomatus sum si scio/Buggered if I know
I think the Dean of Windsor presided over the televised service.
Apparently Princess Delphine is now directly in contact with the Belgian royals and they are "building their relationship." Belgian princes are generally speaking not very visible nor threatened, and no longer get seats in the Senate, so I suppose she just goes about her business as usual. She might get the little security alert signal thingie, perhaps.
The next Monarch of the UK will have been married at Windsor registry office.
I've not heard that one before, but I see where it's going. I've seen various other benchmarks about the degree to which a couple's lives are intermingled (shared finances, shared ownership of things, and so on), and they're all reasonable, and you can quibble with all of them.
(When I do the washing, each kid gets their own load, because it makes sorting the washing afterwards easier. Mrs C and I do share washing-machine loads, but I don't imbue that with much meaning - it's easy to sort our clothes, because nothing I wear looks like anything she wears. If we wore things that were more similar, I'd be more inclined to have a second washing basket and keep them separate.)
"...The Queen's nephew, the Earl of Snowdon, and her niece, Lady Sarah Chatto, don't have royal titles."
This sounds like a contradiction. So earl and lady aren't royal titles? They're something else?
What I';m reading about Archie not having protection and a title is contrary to what the couple said in the interview. I do not think it is accurate from what they said, that the couple decided against using a title for their son. This may be represented as that, but it is not what they said on interview. Additionally their indication that safety was an issue, as they've received death threats. Perhaps entitlement to security protection takes into account only official roles and issues (this sound like the way the royal family operates), and ignores the dynamic risks when threats are made?
As they discussed in the interview, some of this is just a loaded piece of toast.
Yes. That is correct. They’re not royal titles. They are titles of nobility/ aristocracy/ peerage.
There are plenty of earls and ladies whose royal connections are long-ago historical, if they have such connections at all.
[ETA]Archie is entitled to be Earl of Dumbarton, if his parents so choose, and/or Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor - but not a Prince.
Very few British Royals get police protection. Most are without or pay for it themselves if they feel the need. There was a big shake-up in 2011 and 2012 that cut public funding to the Royal Family. See the links I gave above.
But the whole system in the C of E is different to that in France. The C of E has held tightly to its right to be the purveyor of legal marriages in all its churches. If you go to a registry office for the legal bits, it is abundantly clear that any event in church afterwards is "only" a blessing and does not claim to be a legal wedding. As such, there are certain things you cannot do in such a service (essentially the legal bits like "Do you... take ..."). From what I am hearing here, the ABC collaborated in something that, had it been done by a parish priest, would have resulted in a tap on the shoulder from a distinctly displeased archdeacon.
Agreed - in a way. If a couple want to do something privately beforehand, that is their prerogative. They can make any promises to one another that they want. But if I were the priest taking the wedding service, I wouldn't get involved in such a private event - precisely because of the ease with which it could be misunderstood by the couple and/or by others. The moment that a couple start saying that such a private event was their "real" wedding and the public ceremony was "just" something for the viewers, you know that you're in real trouble as a C of E priest.
Unless you think that George V was a seer, and carefully ensured that there wouldn't be a part-black prince more than a century down the road, in which case it wouldn't be lazy - it would be completely batshit crazy.
It's also the case that the suggestion that Prince Harry's children perhaps shouldn't ever have royal titles was floating around long before he'd met Meghan Markle, as part of the general "slim down the monarchy" concept.
Yes, that's right. They're aristocratic titles, but not royal ones.
Lady Sarah is "Lady Sarah" because she's the daughter of an Earl. The fact that the Earl in question was the husband of Princess Margaret isn't relevant to that. It's also true that the first Earl of Snowdon was plain old Antony Armstrong-Jones before he married the Queen's sister, but his title wasn't royal - just aristocratic.
Archie is entitled to be styled as the son of a Duke. The eldest son of a Duke doesn't have a substantive title, but is by courtesy addressed by his father's secondary title. In the case of young Archie, he would be styled as the Earl of Dumbarton (cf. Viscount Severn, the son of the Earl of Wessex). When his name was announced, Buckingham Palace indicated that the Duke and Duchess had chosen not to style their son this way.
Someone mentioned upthread that the most recent review stripped regular police protection from a number of minor royals, such as the York princesses. This is all part of a general desire for a slimmed-down "modern" royal family. You really can't have it both ways.
I am, of course, not privy to any threat assessment concerning the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's children, and wouldn't talk about it if I was, but it is well within the bounds of plausibility to imagine both that the couple received death threats, and that the threats were not deemed credible.
If there is a serious threat to life then they are entitled to the same level of protection from the police as any other citizen who faces a death threat.
What we are talking about is permanent round-the-clock security, paid for by the taxpayer, that you get without any specific threat, purely because of who you are. No minor royals get that AFAICT.
My understanding is that Princess Eugenia and Princess Beatrice, even though they are styled as "Princess" do not have police protection.
The Earl and Countess of Wessex don't have full-time protection either, and the Earl is a son of the reigning monarch.
No. That's not what I did. It is what H & M's interview leads directly to. I repeated it. The child did not get a title, the child thus would not have security protection. The child is treated differently than other children, and race has been directly brought up in the context of. That's from them.
Why would they want two weddings ?
If you marry according to the rites and ceremonies of the CofE it does.