fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5180 ]

[ SECRET POST #5180 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5180 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Brand upon the Brain!]
[WARNING for mention of suicide]

__________________________________________________

07. [SPOILERS for End Roll]
[WARNING for mention of suicide]

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for probable discussion of sexual assault?]

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for mention of sexual assault/rape]

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING for discussion of rape?]

__________________________________________________

11. [WARNING for mention of sexual harassment]

__________________________________________________

12. [WARNING for mention of domestic violence]

__________________________________________________

13. [WARNING for discussion of pedophilia]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #741.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Good point about Andrew - he should certainly be thrown to the wolves.

Speaking out against attacks in the British press has never ever worked, though, particularly not when it comes to royals. I wasn't in the UK for the duration of Harry and Meghan's stay there, so I can't speak to what was and wasn't done, but the wedding all seemed pretty inclusive to me (speaking as a white person.)

Children not being real royals? My understanding is that they're out of the direct line, but once the Queen dies, they will get titles as grandchildren (or niblings) of the monarch. Thus, we have Prince Michael of Kent, and his wife Princess Michael, who certainly is a nasty piece of work. Yes, it's all convoluted and archaic but no I don't think it's racist?

If Harry and Meghan want to bring down the monarchy they've certainly got closer to it than anyone I can think of, so yay to them for having a damn good try at it, I guess. It might be a case of be careful what you wish for.

Why are Prince William's son's princes but Prince Harry's son is not going to be? William and Harry are brothers, there is no reason why Harry's kid shouldn't have the same title as William's kid. They are treating Harry's son (or will-be son) differently than other kids that should be the same. What reason would there be for that besides them seeing Meghan differently and therefore not seeing Harry's kid as equal and giving him a lesser title?

Marry and Meghan don't want to bring down the monarchy. They want to live their lives. They want to be able to live safely and protect themselves as much as possible from the racism and other attacks they've so far gotten. They believe that they can better do that apart from the monarchy than they could while still a part of it. Harry in particular does not believe his wife is safe in the royal family. He remembers what happened to his mother and it makes him want to protect his wife even more.

Harry's child/ren are out of the direct line of succession, but iirc they will become princes and princesses when the Queen dies, and they're then grandchildren or niblings of the next monarch. Thus we get Prince Michael of Kent, also not in the direct line of succession.

Would they want titles for the kids? Anne's don't have titles, from memory. Andrew's did, but he was very hung up on being second in line to the throne and we know where that went.

It's archaic and convoluted but that's what you get when you marry into the royal family.

As for the royal family not protecting Harry's mother, she turned down protection from what I remember? It's been a while.

Princess Anne's two kids, Zara and Phillip, don't have titles *because she refused them*, not because they were never offered.

Prince Andrew's daughters are titled, because he and Fergie didn't refuse them when offered. But they are also not high up in the ranking as far as the crown goes either.

Typically, the grandchildren of the monarch *are* titled, unless the parents refuse the titles.

So yes, Archie should have been a prince in his own right. He is still in direct line- Harry is still 6th in line, making Archie 7th.

And yes, if I remember correctly, once the divorce was finalized, Diana turned down extensive protection that she would have had , had they remained married.

Succession is a little weird, but unless you are in the direct line, titles aren't automatic and even then, it sort of depends on how far you are from a certain title. Titles can get conferred, though - the Duke and the Duchess of Sussex were given by the queen. Anyway, if William hadn't had any children, then Harry would be next in the line after him, if Charles hadn't had any children, it would have gone to Andrew after Charles (Anne is older, but it wasn't until Charlotte that they changed male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture). So right now, it goes Elizabeth->Charles->William->George->Charlotte->Louis->Harry->Archie and Harry (and Archie) will get further away from the succession if William has more children and if George, Charlotte, and/or Louis later have children.

Yep. I guess it's because I've got some familiarity with British history/European history but it's so weird that people don't know this is how it works and it's not some spiteful invention to diss Harry and Meghan, LOL.

It all goes back to George V (Queen's grandfather) who, at the time, decided to cut down on all the extra titles floating around the family (considering he is the grandson of Queen Victoria - he had 8 aunts and uncles having multiple children so its not that odd he wanted to curtail the titles).

His limits were basically the titles of prince and princess being given only to the children of the monarch, children of the monarch's sons and "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales".

Now the queen has the power to change the rules and she did that all ready for all of William's kids to be princes and princesses since he's the heir to follow Charles.

Here's the thing I don't see people talking about --- Archie isn't alone in not having a title. The other 5 grandchildren are also without title. In fact the only thing we do know Megan and Harry did that the others didn't is that they actually turned down a lord title for Archie when he was born.

And like the other user said -- once Charles is king Archie could pick up a prince title depending on relations at the time and if Charles feels like doing so as his mother did for William's kids.

Here's the thing I don't see people talking about --- Archie isn't alone in not having a title. The other 5 grandchildren are also without title. In fact the only thing we do know Megan and Harry did that the others didn't is that they actually turned down a lord title for Archie when he was born.

... which is why the whole hinting at "our son doesn't have a title bc racism" feels so disingenuous to me. They must know the real reason why Archie isn't officially a prince, and pretending like it's a calculated insult is... wow. But it works because many Americans (including philstar, look at all that righteous outrage!) don't know George V's decision and they don't realize that the reason why Meghan and Harry's kid doesn't have a title is because he was never entitled (ha!) to one in the first place, according to rules established before his parents were even born, and that he's not being singled out because he's biracial.

I think they were also hinting that once Charles is king, he will make changes that further limit who is eligible for what title that will mean that Archie *still* won't get the title of prince. Which, yeah, would look rather bad, but I think there have been mentions of Charles intending to do something like that once he is king for a while, not just once Harry got together with Meghan.

Okay. Interesting, and weird system if you ask me. I will take back that part of my comment. I was unaware of this aspect of the British system. I still stand by the rest of it, though.

Besides William and Harry-

Zara and Phillip, Anne's kids, aren't titled because Anne turned the titles down.

Eugenie and Beatrice *are* titled, because Andrew *did not* turn them down.

Louise is a Lady, but not titled as Princess, her younger brother James is untitled. Unsure if Edward turned them down or not. Edward and Sophie wanted them to grow up as normal as possible, so it's likely the titles of Prince and Princess were refused.

As per the Oprah interview- they were never offered a title for Archie. So there was nothing to turn down.

William is the oldest son, that's why. I don't mean to be rude, but... are you at all familiar with how primogeniture works? I'm not saying it's a great system, but it's not at all new. When it comes to the throne, Harry's kids aren't equal to William's. That's got nothing to do with race, it's a firstborn vs. second thing. Like... you can look at English history for centuries and see that playing out. It's why Elizabeth became queen and her sister Margaret didn't. It's why Charles is heir and not his younger siblings, it's why his kids are ahead of his siblings' kids. They didn't invent this to get back at Meghan.

Okay, I didn't realize this. I knew that Harry wasn't going to be king, but I though this children would still be princes and princesses because of who their grandparents were.

I still stand by the rest of my comment, though. The royal family should have defended Meghan from the racism in the press and the general public. The fact that they gave her less defense than they did Prince Andrew is extremely telling.

What defence did they give Andrew? Stonewalling silence and demotion from being a senior royal doesn't really constitute a defence. But I'm not in the UK any more and haven't been following any of this very closely.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #5180 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Blame George V

Re: Blame George V

Re: Blame George V

Re: Blame George V

Elizabeth has 8 grandkids.

no subject

no subject

no subject