*** PLEASE NOTE ***





*** PLEASE NOTE *** I use no other social media, and my comment section here remains closed due to chronic harassment/repeat impersonations by a certain individual. Also, I rarely comment anywhere; when I do, only from this blog as "Chrysalis" or with my real name from email (see correct spelling my profile). If there is ever any question as to legitimacy, please contact myself or Mark via email or phone.


Tuesday, March 9, 2021

Why Archie Was Not a Prince From Birth, Would've Been With Charles Ascension, But Meg/Harry Are Saying Efforts Were Underway to Change That


Of course, I'm not British Royal Succession law expert, but the BBC gives a very good explanation here, for anyone who, like me, didn't understand how titles were given.  Besides that link, I'll publish it in its entirety here, and then give my opinion:   


        What does royal protocol say?

The rules about who gets to be a prince and also be referred to as his royal highness (HRH) come from a letter patent issued by King George V in November 1917.

Letters patent are legal instruments which may take the form of an open letter from the monarch. They may be used for royal declarations or the granting of titles such as peerages.

In the 1917 letter, George V declared that the great-grandchildren of the monarch would no longer be princes or princesses, except for the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

In our current situation, that means that Prince George, the eldest son of Prince William, automatically became a prince, but not Archie, even though they are both great-grandsons of the Queen.

Under this protocol, Prince George's siblings - Charlotte and Louis - would not have received the title either.

But in December 2012, the Queen also issued a letter patent which said that all of Prince William's children would be entitled to be princes or princesses and get the HRH title.

Also, being a prince or princess only goes through the male line, which means that the children of Princess Anne did not get those titles despite being the Queen's grandchildren. 

What about Archie's title?

According to the 1917 letter, Archie is entitled to become a prince - but not yet.

The children of Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, children would have to wait until Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, became king, at which point they would be the grandchildren of the monarch and hence entitled to be princes or princesses.

That is why Prince Andrew's daughters - Beatrice and Eugenie - were princesses from birth, for example.

The Duchess of Sussex was clearly aware of the protocol.

She referred in the interview to a "George V or George VI convention" that would mean her son Archie would become a prince "when Harry's dad becomes king".

But she went on to say that she had been told when she was pregnant that "they want to change the convention for Archie" so he would not become a prince.

She did not give any more details about this and Buckingham Palace has not commented on her claims.

"I saw that Meghan mentioned that there were plans to narrow eligibility and I imagine that this is a reference to the Prince of Wales's stated view that the size of the royal family needs to be reduced," said Bob Morris from the Constitution Unit at UCL.

"However, he has not so far as I know given details of how it should be accomplished."


_________________________________




My Opinion:

First of all, may I just say that I was shocked to find out that Britain is still adhering to an antiquated law that still prefers males, after so many successful and popular queens?!?


Yes, the Queen updated by proclamation and adjunct to that in 2012, but just for William's children - that all 3 would be princes and princesses, not just George.

However, the rest of the law is still active and intact otherwise.

Secondly, if true that Charles was trying to reduce the size of the monarchy - and my suspicion is correct, that it was Charles who made the comments about dark skin in the context of discussion of Archie's title and security protocol - then Houston, we have a huge problem - and it is racist.


So the next question is, when did Charles begin these discussions about reducing the size of the monarchy, what was the true motivation for him doing so, and was it him that made the skin remark during discussions with Harry and Meghan about his title and security protocol?


But again, the likelihood that Buckingham Palace will fully investigate this is about the same as them investigating Prince Andrew's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or Trump's DOJ investigating Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.


Also, hellllloooo - it's been over 100 years - and we've had many successful and capable Queens of England, even long before this law and since - so why are we still adhering to antiquated cultural rot about male heirs?


A final thought on this subject ...


Actually, despite popular belief, if you think about it, the main motivation underlying racism, sexism, and bigotry isn't the superiority aspect, viewing other human beings as inferior to themselves, though that is inaccurate adjunctive belief - because viewing someone as "inferior" alone would actually result in further feeling secure in their own superiority, and in some cases, empathy towards others they view as "inferior" to themselves.

For example, there were many abolitionists working to free the slaves, but still believed blacks "inferior" to themselves, and called themselves having "empathy" for them as "inferiors."

(Ignorant, inaccurate, and disgusting, but true - and it's still racism - and this ideology is the foundation that segregation was built upon, which many abolitionists actually supported.)


No, the underlying main motivation behind racism, sexism, and bigotry isn't the superiority beliefs - the main motivation is fear - fear there's not enough resources and room at the top, particularly for themselves, if we let others in.

The irrational belief of: 
"If I let this person in at the top, who is not like me, there won't be enough resources or power for me and others like me; I will lose control and they gain all control over me " - DESPITE the fact that historically, the biggest threat to their resources and power has always been people just like themselves, deposing each other from power and resources, for centuries lol.

Also, despite viewing us as "inferior," they fear that all women and people of color still have the same motivations they do, and want to "take over" and abuse power, if left to their own devices, and therefore must be monitored.

But most of all, they fear people of color will seek righteous revenge for what they know our ancestors did to their ancestors (and are still doing, in some cases), rather than the truth - which is they aren't seeking revenge, they're simply seeking equal justice and provisions under the law.


Thus, why we need to know Charles' true motivation for "slimming down" the monarchy, hm? ;)



You know, Britain may be light years ahead of us when it comes for providing for their people with things like healthcare, etc. - but dang, let's be honest - sexism and racism are both not only still institutionalized in Britain, but sexism is still literally legalized in monarchy law, despite several successful female queens.

However, I digress - both of our countries continue to allow this cultural rot to persist in different ways.


Lastly, on a related point regarding systems dysfunction, can you see, now, what I've been "preaching" on according to the social-psychological systems theory regarding dysfunctional family/group systems?

It's an especially helpful model for those from dysfunctional, even toxic families, but it can also apply to work groups, and socioeconomic and political systems.


Unfortunately for the royal family, family dysfunction and inequity is predisposed and baked in, it's built into the law.


Here is the classical model of dysfunctional family roles, according to systems theory - plugging in actual royal family names for illustration.  

1. Once the matriarch and/or patriarch with the most power, now retiring/retired power:  The Queen/Phillip.  
2. Current or rising future power:  Charles. 
3. Blind or pretending enablers of power, because they receive the next amount of power/benefit:  Charles' siblings. 
4. Not-blind, but still silent, pretending enablers; those who see and even privately comment on the dysfunction and inequity, but still benefit from it more than they lose - or perceive they will eventually receive benefit/power from enabling - lest they lose all power and benefit by rocking the boat:  William and Kate.  
5. Those with the least amount of rank and power, either receiving little or no benefit from participation in the group, and or at least more loss than benefit, and often blame; often the group scapegoats, especially if they speak up for themselves rather than pretend along:  Harry and Meghan.


Do you see it now, or will we have to go several more centuries before we get how toxic family/group dysfunction really is?


(We could use this same classical dysfunctional systems model and plug in the dysfunctionality that is Trumpism, or America's socioeconomic system in general, but I think you get the idea ;)


Until then, the only option that bottom-ranking members and scapegoats of the family/group system have is to distance themselves from the toxic group or family system, or even cut all ties/escape, if they can, like Harry and Meghan did - and like I did.

That is because anything you say or do, from the bottom, can and will be twisted and used against you, even with sugar on top lol.

It will be perceived as a betrayal to them and a threat to their control/power, and you will be blamed for all the dysfunction and "causing trouble" - though the members of the group with power are the ones who actually betrayed them, long ago, they would still have problems if the lowest members/scapegoats weren't there, and they'd likely just find new scapegoats rather than re-evaluating the system.















No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.