Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates Part 3
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Totally agree. It’s so not big a deal, none of them should have the titles. That’s how not big a deal it should be. Now Charles and William should actually follow the rules they have dictated and make it equal and fair for everyone, not just apply them to the second born and his mixed race family. |
Anonymous
| And while they are at it, the BRF itself should be abolished. What are they truly needed for anyway. |
Anonymous
Although reports were out that Charles wanted to have a trimmed down monarchy way before Harry even met Meghan. He is not just applying them to Harry's mixed race family by design, he planned to do it far before Harry had a family and will just proceed as planned. |
Anonymous
Tourism. They bring in a fortune [u](mostly Americans and Japanese) to London every year (except 2020 obvs). |
Anonymous
' yes, this is true. It is in response to domestic criticism over spending, partly triggered by a year when Beatrice & Eugenie went on something like 20 trips overseas (not work related) and took security. |
Anonymous
What rules are not being applied equally amongst all the grandkids? Eugenies son has no royal title no do Zara’s kids or peters. The Queen issued a Letters Patent giving Charlotte and Louis a royal title. If Charles does issue this letter, then their kids would have no royal titles. Only George’s kids would have titles. I agree with PP, the writing has been on the wall for the royal titles for a while. |
Anonymous
I never quite understand this argument. If the BRF were abolished, how would that impact tourism? The castles, the history, all that would still be there for tourists, just like it is in other European countries. The big events where the current members of the BRF actually attract tourists only occur a few times a generation-- royal wedding, funeral, coronations. Most of the crowd at those events are Brits, not foreign tourists bringing in foreign money. |
Anonymous
Harry's children are the grandchildren of the (future) monarch. Eugenie's and Zara's are not; they are the great-grandchildren so a generation further removed from the line of succession. |
Anonymous
But looking at the current generation as a point of reference: not All of queen elizabeths grandschildren are princes/ princesses and they are the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch! For instance Princess Annes and Prince Edwards kids are not prince/princesses and they are Queen Elizabeths grandchildren. This is similar concept to Archie and Lili once prince charles is the monarch. No one is complaining on Oprah about this! |
Anonymous
I disagree. The Prince/Princess titles aren’t meaningless titles, they confer certain privileges (such as taxpayer paid security) and some entitlement/expectation that the bearer will be part of the BRF business. Andrew (same position in the hierarchy as Harry, a generation older) lobbied for many years that his daughters should be full-time working royals because they were “blood princesses” and failed, because the Queen and Charles didn’t want to expand the number of royals on the taxpayer dime. That’s why they have jobs and appear at only events where the whole extended family gets together. Charles is correct in his instinct that the monarchy needs to be streamlined, especially in the 21st century when there’s less loyalty to the concept of the monarchy in general. Bloating it by adding new members is a bad idea. And this will eventually happen to Charlotte and Louis’ children, too. It’s just the way a hereditary monarchy works, not a personal slight. Also, these kids are both presumably going to be raised in CA as Hollywood/influencer types. They’ll have no real cultural connection to the UK and likely very limited interactions with their British relatives. Just on those grounds, they shouldn’t have the highest royal titles and quasi-diplomatic status as UK figureheads. It has nothing to do with how much Charles loves his grandchildren (which I’m sure he does) - the BRF is an institution. |
Anonymous
And Archie and Lilibet are the Yorkies of the future. People who the British public resent paying for by virtue of their royal title. Edward’s kids don’t have royal titles and they are currently entitled to them. Charles has always said he’s winnowing down the BRF, and when he is King, will pass a law allowing titles only to those in direct succession. Charlotte and Louis kids won’t have titles either. |
Anonymous
Aren’t the Sussexes going on and on about how awful and racist the BRF is? Now they suddenly want the titles? |
Anonymous
That was because Anne and Edward refused the titles for their children. The children were entitled to them and would have been granted them if not for their own parents' decision. Andrew, of course, insisted his children get the titles, hence Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Meghan is correct is saying that Archie would be the first grandchild affected by the change in policy. |
Anonymous
according to the BBC "The tourist board of Great Britain, VisitBritain, says tourism to royal residences like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle brings millions of visitors - and therefore money. Some people say tourism from the monarchy brings in about £550 million." |
Anonymous
Versailles: *exists* |