[ SECRET POST #5194 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5194 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________






















08. [SPOILERS for The Last Book in the Universe]



__________________________________________________



09. [SPOILERS for The Penthouse 2]



__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for mention of sexual assault]



__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for mention of dubcon]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for mention of rape]



__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for mention of noncon/underage shipping]































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #743.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, yeah, of course. It's just that the concept of primogeniture and the firstborn son (usually son, maybe also daughter depending on the situation) isn't limited to British royals it's sort of a... royals-everywhere thing? I'm hard pressed to think of a monarchy anywhere where the firstborn and the firstborn's kids don't come first in succession. It's sort of one of the basic foundation blocks of how the monarchy works. It's not about not understanding what you haven't experienced, really. I imagine you know lots of things you haven't experienced firsthand, because you picked it up in school, books, TV, etc. I don't mean to be rude, but I think you're underestimating just how common a concept this is. It isn't that primogeniture is arcane, specialized knowledge, it's just one of those things that you somehow missed, no biggie.

BTW, I'm American, too. ;)

[philstar22]

I know that the firstborn and his kids come first. I know William will be king and then his firstborn son, unless something happens to them. I just thought the title of prince went to all descendents of the king or queen, not just those first in the first, direct line of succession. Harry is a prince, so I thought his kids would be princes or princesses as well.

I'd honestly never heard that the prince/princess titles only went to the direct line. It is a bit confusing to me since Harry is or was a prince and isn't the direct line.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're still confused. Harry was/is in the direct line of succession, that's why he was titled a prince from birth. Before William had kids, he was third in line - first is his father (as the Queen's eldest son), then his brother William (as the eldest son of the eldest son of the ruler).

Harry's kids will be princes/princesses, eventually. After the Queen dies. But as of now, no. Just like how Harry's cousins' kids are not princes and princesses, unless the Crown decides to make an exception for them, like they did for William's younger children. This was decided by George V, the father of the current queen.

Here, this might help:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56325934

[(Anonymous)]

I should add, in the previous thread it sounded like you were a little confused into thinking that the reason why Harry and Meghan's children didn't get titles was because of racism or some deliberate slight or injustice from the Crown? Now you know that wasn't the case. But if you were going by that Oprah interview, they certainly gave that impression even though both of them knew the George V convention. Food for thought, hmm?

[philstar22]

Well, the article you linked to says that Meghan thinks that they want to specifically change the rules to narrow things even further so Archie won't become a prince even after the Queen dies. But I haven't seen anything else suggesting that, so I don't think there is enough evidence to say whether or not that is true.

[(Anonymous)]

That's possible, if you're still willing to accept Meghan's say-so after her somewhat misleading comments that suggest this is down to racism. But if you look at very recent royal history, you'll see that it's not just George V who wanted to narrow down the public-facing group of royals, Prince Philip did something very similar as well when he decided that certain royals should step back out of the limelight, leaving a core group that you see now. They've been downsizing for several generations now, so to speak. It's possible they hadn't planned on bestowing titles on Harry's kids eventually, and downsizing further.

But at this point, I'm don't think I trust Meghan's word for it. At best - and this is the kindest, most benign interpretation - her understanding of how things work seems very shaky, like yours. If that's the case, then it's very foolish to go throwing around accusations about motive and titles based on one's inaccurate understanding of how they work. (Even though that's proven very effective with many Americans who also don't know how they work.) At worst, you have to wonder why she's giving this impression that no titles = racism even though she knows (and Harry MUST know) that it's just how things work and it would've been the same if she'd been white.

[(Anonymous)]

If you look at Charles' youngest brother's kids, that might be an indication about what title plans going forward for the descendants of a monarch's younger children. Allegedly, Prince Edward and his wife asked for their kids to be styled as the children of an earl rather than using their royal titles (which they still legally have, they just don't use them) because they wanted them to have more privacy and grow up as normal as possible--which imo works partially because a) no one really cares about Edward but also because he and Sophie do a really good job of keeping their children out of the spotlight. It's always been no secret that Charles wants to cut back on the size of the family once the Kents and Gloucesters pass away. A lot of people speculate that he will issue another Letters Patent and restrict titles to just the monarch's children and the heir's children and grandchildren in direct line. However, this is moot as long as the 1917 Letters Patent is still in place. The moment the queen dies and Charles becomes king, Archie and his sister will immediately be legally entitled to be a prince and princess.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a good example, especially because Sophie, Countess of Wessex, is a commoner like Meghan Markle. I don't blame most Americans for not knowing this, but the royals have been cutting back on who gets titles and salaries and benefits of being a royal, and they've been doing it long before Meghan came along. It's very clearly part of the overall plan to streamline the monarchy and how the royals interact with the public.

But a lot of people aren't really aware of the nuances, so when a sympathetic figure like Meghan Markle tries to spin it as racist bullying, they fall for it hook, line and sinker. Even if she'd gone into the situation ignorant (which would've been understandable), there's no way she wasn't acquainted with the rules and how things work when she and Harry got serious, and then got pregnant. That's why I'm slightly wary that she's acting like she doesn't know, nobody told her (!!) and assigning racist motives for why her kids won't automatically get titles upon birth.

[(Anonymous)]

More rule changes are in fact likely because Charles has always been a proponent of limiting the number of royals. If he becomes King, more cuts are likely and this has been known for a long time. Nothing to do with Harry or Meghan in particular.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, exactly. Lots of Americans don't know this. Last time there was a royal secret, philstar got super mad on poor Meghan's behalf and was sooooo sure that the ONLY reason her kids were excluded from a title was because of mean, racist royals, LOL.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not. One of the ironies of Hamlet is that was entirely legitimate in parts of Europe for the body of nobles to say, "oh hey, the experienced brother is totally a better leader than this moody asshole we sent off to university."

Of course Hamlet was written for a Queen who was legally the bastard daughter of a woman who legally never had sex with Henry. But Elizabeth was legally Henry's last living heir, according to his legally negotiated line of succession that was legally used by the dominant coalition of nobles to prevent Edward and Mary from doing the same thing. And a lot of heads did roll figuring that out, literally. So it's not surprising how much Shakespeare was obsessed with lineage and succession given the political environment.

The Normans tended to explicitly name their heirs, so you had Henry II try to placate his three ambitious sons by dividing his lands among them. And a lot of heads did roll figuring that out, literally. Henry II was king by virtue of a peace treaty from a previous civil war.

Elected kings were also a thing in a lot of Europe. That tended to follow heredity, but not always. Of course, the people doing the electing were nobles with gold and their own armies.

Primogeniture was invented primarily because nobles got sick of heads rolling every time there was a question like, "Dear Abby, My last surviving heir is a woman, but I've also been talking with my nephew about how to run the family business. Do I break with tradition or aaaaaaakakkkkkk...." But it wasn't a natural part of the monarchy or universally practiced.