If the Duke & Duchess of Sussex only have daughters, they won’t inherit the Sussex title


Prince Harry and Meghan Markle leave St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle after their wedding

This is one of the dumbest stories I’ve ever read or written about regarding royalty. Apparently, People Magazine and other American outlets honestly believe that Americans have no concept of the reality of primogeniture. Like, seriously, you guys: we’ve read Jane Austen books. We’ve seen the movies. We understand that aristocratic and royal women don’t “inherit” their father’s title. But apparently, it’s breaking news that if the newly minted Duke and Duchess of Sussex have only daughters, none of them will inherit the Sussex title. HOW SHOCKING.

The brand new titles Prince Harry and Meghan Markle received from the Queen on their wedding day can only be passed on to a future son, which means any daughters they might have will not inherit a title. When they were married, Queen Elizabeth made the couple the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, but the dukedom can only be inherited by a male heir, and if they don’t have any boys, then the title will die out. Meghan has said in the past that both she and Harry are feminists, and her “About” page on the royal family website underscores the importance of her being a champion of female empowerment. “I am proud to be a woman and a feminist,” she is quoted on the site.

Changes regarding male and female heirs have been made before. Thanks to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, birth order determines who will become the next king or queen of the U.K., regardless of gender. Had it not been in place, Princess Charlotte, 3, would have lost her spot to baby brother, Prince Louis. The legislation was first passed while Kate was pregnant with Prince George, 4. But rules governing the peerage have remained the same, giving priority to boys. And inheritance laws do not just pertain to royals. The Daughters’ Rights organization has been campaigning for legislative change throughout the U.K.

[From People]

This update was provided to you by the Department of DERP and its secretary-general Captain Obvious. Besides, it’s likely that everything changes once the Queen passes away too – Charles will become king, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge become the Prince and Princess of Wales, and my guess is that Charles would seriously consider investing Harry and Meghan as the Duke and Duchess of York, regardless if Andrew was still living. And even if Harry and Meg become the Yorks, guess what? If they have only daughters, those daughters still won’t inherit the title because that’s just not the way it works in Jolly Old England. That being said, ALL of Harry and Meg’s children will be given “prince” and “princess” titles, I guarantee.

Prince Harry, Patron of the Invictus Games Foundation, and Ms. Meghan Markle attend the UK team trials for the Invictus Game

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid and Pacific Coast News.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

203 Responses to “If the Duke & Duchess of Sussex only have daughters, they won’t inherit the Sussex title”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Rhys says:

    This is how one gets reminded that one is a part of the Firm first and a feminist … maybe, somewhere at the end of the list?

    • Enough Already says:

      This is a legislative issue not a BRF one. Don’t dump this on her shoulders.

      • Tina says:

        Yes, exactly. Some aristocratic daughters have been fighting for this for years. It’s actually not something that Meghan should get involved with, it’s quite political.

      • LAK says:

        It’s aggravating to read the parliamentary discussions on this. They have a debate when a case about inheritance rights comes up; they agree that it should be changed, but decide at the last hurdle that it’s too much work because peerage law is different in the 4 countries and none wants to put in the necessary work to push it through as they would have to align all 4 countries.

        Every.single.time!

        If they make a ruling, it’s put on the books as one for the case under debate and not to be taken as precedent or incorporated into general law. And only in the country in which the case was raised.

      • Rhys says:

        The point is some woman is being “gently” reminded publicly about what not to forget.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I agree EA.
        Titles have been a sticky issue for centuries. Some women did inherit titles. I think mostly Scottish and there are/were English titles that could be passed to the daughters but it is rare. It has to be legislated and some of the reasons for not changing it aren’t all that crazy. Most of them are of course but if a title is passed through women then there is a risk that the family name is no longer associated with the title. I am not an expert in this but I think that is the case.

      • Lydia says:

        A very easy solution. Instead of only males being able to inherit these titles, only females can inherit them. They only need to add ‘fe’ to every -male in this law.

        You can bet that parliament will suddenly make it top priority to have it equal.

      • This story originated from the daily mail so it is the Patriarchy reminding her to stay in her place.

  2. Coco says:

    They will still be ridiculously wealthy so I’m sure they’ll be fine. Would be nice if the way titles are passed down would join us in 2018 though.

    • jwoolman says:

      How meaningful are those titles today, anyway? Only one kid will get the title regardless, yes?

      • Coco says:

        Pretty meaningless to me but I’m sure those who have them are proud they do. Part of their heritage, family history, blah, blah. Still a bummer women can’t have them passed down.

      • Uglyartwork says:

        Some lord or something died a few years ago with only daughters, so the 5000+ Acre estate was given to a distant male cousin and the daughters got none of it. It matters a lot.

      • LAK says:

        Uglyartwork: That Baron case was mindboggling.

        A more recent case involved a Viscount asking that his second son be granted the same inheritance rights as his older brother incase he outlived his older brother. The reason he was excluded? The couple used a surrogate for the 2nd son which under peerage law makes 2nd son both illegitimate AND not born ‘of the body’. Nevermind that he was 100% genetically of the Viscount and his wife and the surrogate had been used as simply a gestation carrier.

      • Cee says:

        The title is usually tied up to estates and money and art collections and everything else in between, so it does matter.

      • magnoliarose says:

        It matters though some nowadays don’t use their titles socially anymore. Adopted children can’t inherit. I believe that is still the case. There is an interesting documentary about aristocrats and in it, a Marchioness complains that her adopted children won’t get jot in the end. That seems silly.

      • LAK says:

        Magnoliarose: Not just adopted kids. Those born via surrogate even if gestation material is 100% of the titled married couple as well as any children born outside legitimate marriage ie common law situations.

      • Lady D says:

        Similar to how Prince Albert of Monaco’s illegitimate children won’t inherit titles either. Albert can leave them money or estates in his will though, or no?

      • magnoliarose says:

        @LAK
        That is absurd. That is punishing the couple for health issues or choices and disregarding medical advances. It is unfair!

      • LAK says:

        Magnoliarose: i quite agree. But you know 1000yr old laws that parliament is too lazy to change even though in theory they agree with the required changes……..Google Viscount Weymouth for my example about his 2nd son.

        And in the case of @uglyartwork’s example, the Baron had 8 daughters who had variously looked after his estate all their lives. At his death, it went to a distant male cousin they had never met. They petitioned parliament with full backing of their dying father, but were turned down in the end.

  3. QueenB says:

    Meghans strong feminist influence showing!

    • EOA says:

      She’s been married less than a month. It’s a bit much to expect she could change centuries’ worth of inheritance laws in that time.

      • Olenna says:

        It’s highly doubtful Meghan could influence any change in the laws, and it’s highly doubtful she would even try. As Kaiser said, this “revelation” about her children’s titles isn’t recent news. Meghan was probably aware of this before going into the engagement. She also knew she was marrying into an anachronistic, patriarchal institution, so it’s debatable whether or not being a feminist has anything to do with the laws. If an entire country can’t or won’t change the rules, what can one expect from an American new to the system? Should a feminist, any feminist, even be concerned about aristocratic, archaic titles? IMO, no. The system is important only to those who put worth in it.

      • magnoliarose says:

        You can be a feminist and be in the BRF. The idea that a woman can’t be is a superficial argument. As if women all over the world aren’t subjugated all the time without the pomp of royalty. In a thousand different ways every single day women have to make decisions to protect our agency.
        She can modernize in some areas but to expect she is going to dismantle an institution is ridiculous. Her actions in life and the causes she chooses are far more important than this. What she does and how she behaves daily are far more important than these issues. In fact, I think it would be something other royals should consider discussing and not a new member who isn’t even British. Allow the aristocratic women to take up the cause. I believe there is a Duke’s daughter who had a lot to say on this matter.
        Feminism isn’t a checklist. It is a personal journey and not an idea of perfection. There is no such thing as a perfect feminist.
        Should he have turned down Harry to prove a point? For whose sake? At the end of the day personal contentment is far more important than an empty cause like this one. The children will *gasp* survive without titles. Zara seems to be ok and muddling through poor dear without a title.

      • QueenB says:

        “You can be a feminist and be in the BRF.”

        How could this be true? Unless its the asinine pop feminism “All you have to do is BELIEVE in equality”
        I cant think of any other job thats less feminist than a princess. A breeding machine dependent on her husband, living off wealth thats not only grossly inequal but also stolen from PoC and rules set into stone by long dead men.

        “Feminism isn’t a checklist.” Is is though to some degree. There are things you cant do or think and still be a feminist.

        Meghan clearly wants to sell herself as a feminist. All I am expecting is to live up to it. Really not unfair.

      • Tina says:

        A “breeding machine?” That’s both unkind and inaccurate. There is no requirement at all that Harry and Meghan have children. There are tonnes of other people in the line of succession. And Meghan is dependent on her husband but he’s dependent on the state. It’s not like her position is any worse than his.

        Sure, there are things you can’t do or think and still be a feminist. If you don’t think that men and women are equal, you can’t be a feminist. But being a part of the British royal family is not one of those things. I have no idea whether Princess Anne would describe herself as a feminist or not, but she sure is one to me. Camilla has been publicly described as a feminist and made no objection. Both of them do significant good work in feminist areas. To me, the fact that they have archaic titles and live off the state doesn’t change the feminist work they do in other areas. That’s like saying welfare recipients can’t be feminists.

      • magnoliarose says:

        No feminism isn’t a checklist because that means someone has to make the checklist and exactly who gets to do that? Sure there are some basics but I can’t see how she hasn’t lived up to them. It starts with a belief and then it becomes actions and way of living and making choices. If they are empty words then it is certainly a pop idea only worthy of a t-shirt. When I think of pop feminism I think of Lena Dunham and Swifty along with the other celebrities who parrot it but live for the male gaze or make a noisy show of rejecting it.
        You call her breeding machine but that doesn’t mean that is what she is. Kate has that role she makes heirs for the crown or whatever. If MM always wanted to be a parent then how is it suddenly unacceptable because she married Harry? She had a career and she went as far as she could with it. I don’t think she was on her way to an Academy Award in her lifetime. I have never watched Suits so perhaps she is more accomplished than I think.
        How she chooses to use her wide exposure will determine if she means it or not. I am not ready to make that judgment at this point.
        Personally, there is no way on earth I would have married into the BRF if given that opportunity. All of the criticisms about it being limited and stifling are exactly why I would run for the hills.

    • Rhys says:

      She is a feminist (or identifies herself as such) but she is being reminded she is a part of the royal family first and will abide by the rules first. I know she wants to bring change and I think she will but no dark nail polish and stockings in public aren’t the only ways one is being put in one’s place.

    • Lela says:

      I mean lets not kid ourselves, she knew what she was signing up for, all the stories about modernizing the monarchy and all the feminist ideas she was bringing was pure PR.

  4. Clare says:

    I don’t think Charles could make Harry Duke of York while Andrew is living, unless the duchy is taken away from him or he gives it up.

    I do agree their kids would probably be given Prince/princess stylings if they wanted it.

    Having said that, this whole thing is ridiculous – that this sexist shit exists as well as the faux surprise about it.

    • Clare says:

      Also just imagine for fun if Charles doesn’t make William Prince of Wales. Lol.

    • Plum says:

      Exactly. There can only be one “Duke of X” at the same time. Right now, the title “Duke of York” belongs to Andrew; if he dies without a son, the title reverts back to the crown and becomes “free” to be created again. It isn’t automatic that the second son of the monarch becomes Duke of York, it just happens very often.

    • Becks1 says:

      I do think they will be given prince/princess titles if Harry and Meghan want them to have them. If they had kids when Charles was king, their kids would be entitled to Prince/princess, right? or no?

      If that’s right, then I think they’ll do prince/princess from the get-go. I know that harry and Meghan’s children will probably not be FT royals but harry and Meghan will be for at least the next 20-30 years and my guess is they will keep their children “royal” as far as titles go.

      • LAK says:

        Technically, their kids have no right to Prince(ss) titles. They are outside the criteria that governs these rights. Once Charles becomes King, their kids will fall inside the criteria and can automatically call themselves Prince(ess) without anyone granting it.

        The only way for their kids to receive this style whilst outside the criteria is if the Queen gifts it to them.

      • Becks1 says:

        LAK okay that’s what I thought. So my guess is if the queen will gift it to them just so its a done deal.

      • Onerous says:

        @LAK – if the kids are born before Charles is King, do they automatically get the right to the Prince/ss title upon his ascent to the throne? Or do they have it only if they’re born while he is on the throne?

      • LAK says:

        Onerous: On his ascent, they automatically gain the right to the Prince(ss) regardless of when they are born.

        If they are born before he gains the throne, they have no right. And if he never gains the throne, they will never have the right because they were never children/ grandchildren of the monarch.

    • Noddles says:

      I agree. As their kids will be nowhere close to ever being monarchs, it’s their choice as to whether their kids are Prince or Princess. I think the choice will say a lot about them. Zara and Peter weren’t given titles and that was their parents choice.

      Kate will still be Duchess of Cambridge even when William is Prince of Wales. Princess is a birth thing. Similarly Meghan is a Duchess and not a Princess. Kate will become Queen Consort when William is King. Harry and Meghan will always now be the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, unless they divorce and Meghan might have the title removed.

      • Duch says:

        Kate will automatically be Princess of Wales when Wm becomes POW, and I fully imagine given the long time, that she will use that title. The only reason Camilla doesn’t use that styling is because of the strong association of Diana with that title and the messiness of the situation.

        Having married her prince, Meghan is now a princess of the U.K. (as is Kate – see the 3 birth certificates of her children), but Meghan’s styling is Duchess of Sussex.

        But you’re right that “Princess Kate” and “Princess Meghan” are both incorrect, since they weren’t born into the role. But just saw People magazine call her Princess Kate recently. 🙃

  5. whatever says:

    Meh, Charlotte is not going to get her father’s titles either – she won’t become Duchess of Cambridge or Princess of Wales upon the death of her parents. She will get the Princess Royal title once her father becomes King and Princess Anne dies. As the eldest daughter of the Monarch she will be entitled to that but no other titles.

    Similarly, Beatrice won’t inherit the Dukedom of York from Prince Andrew. I think if the Queen wanted to change things she would have pushed for it back when Beatrice was born because this rule effects her the most right now.

    • Clare says:

      Actually she WILL become princess Charlotte of Wales if/when William is made Prince of Wales. If she is not made PoW she will be Princess Charlotte of Cornwall and Cambridge when Chuckles becomes king and William become the next in line.

      When William becomes King, G will become Duke of Cornwall and PoW and Charlotte we become ‘The Princess Charlotte’. She will retain the princess title regardless of marriage. Just like The Princess Anne.

      Charlotte will not automatically be the princess royal, and she is not entitled to it – Anne didn’t get that title until 1987 – and since there an only be one, it wouldn’t be in Anne’s lifetime.

      • Plum says:

        The title Prince of Wales is reserved for the heir apparent, so even if it was made gender neutral Charlotte wouldn’t be in line to inherit it unless she was to become first in line for the throne.

        Maybe in the future we will see a Princess of Wales in her own right, maybe if George’s firstborn is a girl.

      • Becks1 says:

        Right there’s a difference between being “Princess Charlotte of Wales” (which she will become) and the Princess of Wales. Like how William was Prince William of Wales but not the Prince of Wales.

      • Clare says:

        As the daughter of the PoW (which isn’t a guaranteed title like Duke of Cornwall btw) she will be Princess of Wales IF William is given the title. When her father becomes King she will stop being Princess of Wales and be ‘promoted’ to The Princess Charlotte – no qualifications, until (and if) the King gives her the Princess Royal title.

        So she will not be inheriting Wales (it’s just a title not a duchy!) or any of the dukedoms, but she will be given the titles through her father. And she will eventually ‘lose’ the title when her brother moves up the line of succession.

        I mean, of course none of this is gender neutral, or fair. But neither is the fact that a bunch of dogs inherit immense wealth this way…just pointing out to the OP that she will receive some of her fathers titles – albeit temporarily.

        Also Becks you’re right!

      • whatever says:

        @Plum

        I remember reading that Queen Elizabeth wasn’t allowed to become Princess of Wales when her father became King and her mother when passed childbearing age..that was such as shame. So this has been an issue for many, many decades/centuries and not an issue that has just come to light because of feminist Meghan like People magazine would like everyone to believe.

        I do agree it would be nice if the POW title becomes gender neutral so that a future female heir apparent can become Princess of Wales.

      • Becks1 says:

        @whatever I do wonder if Charlotte had been first if she would have been princess of wales. I think the reason Elizabeth was never made PoW was because she was the heir apparent not heir presumptive (or other way around, I always get confused, lol), and conceivably a brother would have knocked her out of being the heir. Now had Charlotte been first born, a younger brother would not have moved her farther down the line, and she would have been the heir to the throne, so maybe she would have been princess of wales in her own right.

      • Cee says:

        That’s because she was never Heir Apparent but Presumptive. I believe that with total primogeniture a female IS Heir Apparent and would be entitled to be invested as Princess of Wales in her own right.
        Someone correct me if I’m wrong but had Charlotte been born first, she could receive the title of POW if William, as King, gave it to her as his Heir.

      • whatever says:

        @Becks1

        Your right but still think Queen Elizabeth should have been made Princess of Wales when it became obvious her parents weren’t going to have any more children. From everything I have read about QE2 parents I think it was very obvious that they were happy with the 2 girls they had and didn’t want to add to that. Bertie used to refer to his family as “we four”.

        QE2 also didn’t ascend the throne until her mother was in her 50′s – passed the age when it was safe to be pregnant so there could have been an opportunity to give her the Princess of Wales title for a few years before she ascended the throne.

      • LAK says:

        Clare: She will not be Princess of Wales because she is not the heir. She will be Princess Charlotte of Wales. That is a nuanced difference that makes the distinction on whether she is the heir apparent or simply a daughter of the Prince of Wales.

        The Queen was never the heir apparent officially and as a result couldn’t be given the Princess of Wales titles nor the duchy of Cornwall titles and estates. The rule is very clear on this point. She was heir presumptive which meant that in the event her parents had a son, he would become heir apparent and therefore Prince of Wales.

        The gender difference in titles is something the change in succession laws didn’t address because it is still inherited in the MALE line per peerage law which governs these titles, but a female can now inherit the throne. Ie they didn’t sort out the titles / inheritance of duchies despite removing the gender barrier to the throne itself.

      • Bridget says:

        Also, the “Prince of Wales” title isn’t automatically passed down, it is conferred.

      • Lady D says:

        Was he really called Bertie? It seems so juvenile for a king.

      • LAK says:

        Lady D: too many *Berties in the family. That’s why i appreciate David because i immediately know who that is.

        *short for Albert.

      • Tina says:

        What LAK said. Also, the Queen is Duke of Lancaster, not Duchess of Lancaster.

      • LAK says:

        Fun fact: Duke of Lancaster is the only title in the peerage held singly. No courtesy titles for spouses or children. And it is always Male. Even when held by a female monarch like our present Queen.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I learned a lot from this exchange. Interesting. How you all remember this and keep track is beyond me. lol

      • Tina says:

        @LAK, I didn’t know that! So neither Camilla nor Kate will be Duchess of Lancaster.

        And also, @whatever, “heir presumptive” and “heir apparent” are all about possibilities, no matter how remote. It was technically possible that the Queen Mother could have predeceased Bertie and he could have remarried and produced a son, right up until the end of his life. Elizabeth was heir presumptive right up until she became Queen.

      • Truthful says:

        Love this thread! so much informations. Thanks ladies for all these interesting new inputs for me.

    • Ravine says:

      The Queen is also known as the Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Normandy#Title_today

  6. A says:

    Eh, the rules will change in the future and by the time that Harry and Meghan passes away I’m sure things will have changed.

  7. Plum says:

    British rules regarding titles and aristocracy ARE extremely sexist and discriminatory, since the majority of titles pass through the male-line only. Since the change in law, the British Royal Family is now the exception, but only when it comes to succession to the throne — though women were never excluded from the Crown (and now have full equality), titles were only passed by males, and female royals don’t recieve Dukedoms or Earldoms. This is why the husband and children of Princess Anne were never entitled to any sort of title, and why they gave a title to Princess Margaret’s husband, not to herself (because otherwise her children would get no title at all).

    Consider the desparity — Meghan, as Harry’s wife, automatically became a royal and a HRH upon marriage (since she takes her husband’s title), but Princess Anne and Princess Eugenie’s husbands (and children) remain untitled commoners.

    That being said, I think making Harry’s title gender neutral might open a can of worms and shake the foundations of nobility in the UK, as other titled people would rightfully consider it an injustice that their titles can’t be inherited by their daughters or sisters. E.g. Andrew might be upset that his own daughters can’t inherit his title, and that the changes didn’t affect the Dukedom of York. This would even create a wider movement pushing for reform, because in 2018 I imagine there are many Dukes and Earls who would like their daughters or sisters to inherit their titles and can’t, and maybe the Queen and her advisors don’t want to start a conversation over gender equality in noble titles.

    (A few years ago Spain passed a law mandating absolute primogeniture for all noble titles; AFAIK it’s the only country in the WORLD where this happens, and in many other places, like Scandinavia and Benelux, women can’t inherit noble titles at ALL.)

  8. Cee says:

    Andrew has to be dead for the DoY title to be free as it would go back to the Crown and then can it be given to Harry, as the Monarch’s second son. Same with Anne’s Princess Royal title. That one will be Charlotte’s in the future.

    Edit – This rule affects Beatrice the most – her father’s the only Royal Duke with no sons to inherit his title.
    Both York Princesses will lose their “of York” denomination as soon as they marry, too.

  9. Citresse says:

    Adding fuel to the fire re- MM is a fake feminist just like Trudeau. I’m sorry but MM wanted a rich, pampered life but she must live in a goldfish bowl now, so we’ll see how long it lasts.

    • Rhys says:

      Are you saying a feminist cannot desire to have a rich and pampered life and somehow is less real for wanting one?

    • Erinn says:

      “I’m sorry but” no you’re not, come on.

      I love that you’re dragging Trudeau into this, because OBVIOUSLY this story is about him.

    • Gabby says:

      @Citresse Well said! 🙌🏻👏🏻👏🏻

    • E says:

      I tend to agree. How can you rightfully call yourself a ‘feminist’ when you’re marrying into one of the most sexist, antiquated institutions all at the expense of the British taxpayers…. including your lavish clothes being subsidised by the taxpayer.

    • minx says:

      She may personally identify as a feminist but the institution she married into isn’t.

    • Citresse says:

      I’m saying a true feminist wouldn’t have married into any royal family. It’s an archaic system of oppression. Look at the problems Diana experienced, though she did get a decent settlement. MM was phoney baloney at times during the engagement interview. And I believe from the body language on the day of wedding, Harry is much more into MM than v versa. MM is a political person, she may experience significant difficulties being directed by courtiers and others. In any event, I do hope MM and Harry remain blissfully happy.

      • Enough Already says:

        So no feminist should ever run for public office or become a lawyer, physician, educator etc. has every woman who ever took her husband’s last name also given up the right to call herself a feminist?

      • Truthful says:

        @enough Already:

        I think that what Citresse tried to underline was not just “getting married”… it was more “getting married in THAT family” that can’t be feminist. I think that was the true meaning of Citresse’s comment (correct me if I am wrong)

        And I kind of agree.

      • Enough Already says:

        She married the person she loved. Should Harry be condemned for his family’s entire legacy? If people throw away everything she ever did before she said I do then they are the misogynists, imo.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Citresse, I disagree with you though I too hope they are happy. I think you are right that at times it will be difficult. There are limitations at play here.
        My mother is a to the bone feminist and became very successful professionally at a time when it was it was extremely difficult. She is a feminist and there is no denying how she has lived her life and what she has fought for.
        But she still wanted to be happy in her personal life. She still married and had children. She still likes when my father calls her his girlfriend or his other sweet pet names. She still took his last name and she still likes to be glamorous. She still played hostess for his career and is happy to take a supporting role sometimes. It had nothing to do with her feminism but she simply loves my father and they are partners. BTW he does the same and I believe Harry would be happy in that role too.
        It is a balancing act and she will have to choose her battles wisely and recognize some things won’t change in her lifetime. She and Harry can be a team and do good things or she can be consumed with historical fights she will never win.

      • Natalia says:

        “And I believe from the body language on the day of wedding, Harry is much more into MM than v versa.”

        @Citresse
        Did it ever occur to you that Meghan was being circumspect and a bit restrained knowing that the entire world including the entire British Aristocracy was looking on?

        Leos are known for their warmth but they are also known for their regality which often includes being stately and somewhat restrained. That’s the double side of Leo.

        I just dont buy it at all that’s she’s faking love for her husband.

      • Olenna says:

        LOL! What’s this? A “feminist” trying to call another “feminist” out for marrying a rich guy? Sounds like the same stuff that gets repeated almost every Meghan thread–a “true feminists” pops in to explain her definition of feminism, repeats her favorite put-downs or rumors, and/or gazes into her crystal ball to tap Meghan and Harry’s psyche and measure their emotional output. Ha! The amazing thing is, this is all done repeatedly without the “true feminist” either caring or knowing it looks like nothing more than a sad mix of envy and personal animosity.

    • Truthful says:

      Ditto.

      One can want a rich and pampered life… but to have it at the cost of your freedom and choices can’t be feminist.

      You absolutely can want a rich and pampered life… and be Oprah ( with your own will and with no one telling you what to do or not and what to wear or not). I think this is where lies the difference.

    • Tina says:

      I think you can be a feminist and make non-feminist choices. I consider that being a feminist means that you consider women to be 100% equal to men. If you think that, then you’re a feminist. I’ve made plenty of non-feminist choices in my life, such as changing my name when I got married. But I’d be very insulted if someone said I couldn’t be a feminist because of them.

      • Truthful says:

        I absolutely agree with you on the fact that you can be a feminist and make non -feminist choices , this proceeds from the ability to make choices, and molding your very own path and therefore is an expression of your free will in its freeier expression.

        But

        Would you make a choice that would bare you from this ability of just choosing? (even your nail color and the way you dress)?
        a choice that would deprive you from making even non-feminist choices, a final choice that would strip you for the very ability of just choosing.

        This is why marrying into BRF is a non-feminist choice. and of course you can choose not being a feminist. But it cannot be called being a feminist

      • Tina says:

        She’s not a prisoner. She can divorce Harry and move back to LA any time she wants. The firm into which she has married has a dress code. I have a dress code in my office. If I choose to wear a skirt suit, I have to wear tights or stockings. Now that’s slightly anti-feminist, but I’m still a feminist. I know Muslim women who wear hijab who consider themselves feminists.

        I would never take the ability to call oneself a feminist away from any woman who was exercising her own free choice to do something, even something anti-feminist. There’s nothing irrevocable about the choices Meghan has made. Most institutions on this planet are sexist. But I would never consider that a woman who joins any one of them should be prevented from calling herself a feminist.

      • Natalie S. says:

        Meghan can wear whatever nailpolish color she wants during the vast majority of the year when we don’t see the royals.

      • Truthful says:

        @tina:
        “She’s not a prisoner. She can divorce Harry and move back to LA any time she wants. The firm into which she has married has a dress code. I have a dress code in my office. If I choose to wear a skirt suit, I have to wear tights or stockings. Now that’s slightly anti-feminist, but I’m still a feminist. I know Muslim women who wear hijab who consider themselves feminists.”

        Again agree to a lot of things. (dress code, muslim women etc)

        “But again it’s not about choosing an occupation, it’s about choosing to Renounce your very ability to choose… Just Choosing.

        “Most institutions on this planet are sexist. But I would never consider that a woman who joins any one of them should be prevented from calling herself a feminist.”

        Yes again but it’s not “just an institution” , like all professional women choose to join in order to pursue a career…. it’s a choice to be a royal Duchess, as backward as this title sound, with all the patriarchal obligations attached to it. You choose to stop choosing, and your abide to a special etiquette, dress code and all not to accomplish something but because you MARRIED someone .

        Feminism has a meaning, it’s fighting for equality (pay, recognition, social issues, etc), choosing to put aside the ability to choose even non -feminist choices, is the very opposite of it.

        @ nathalie: yes she can wear whatever nail polish when we don’t see the royals… butte can’t because told to the rest of the time ( no choice here on this basic simple possibility)

        PS: MM isn’t behaving as a feminist… and that’s OK because she never claimed she was gloria Steinem or Flora Tristan either. so there’s no pbm saying she is not a feminist too

      • Tina says:

        You’re focusing on the trappings, the titles. Most of this stuff is symbolic and traditional now. We like tradition in the UK. Take the House of Lords, for example. That’s sexist as hell. Men in it are “Lord X” and their wives can call themselves “Lady X,” based on nothing more than being married. Women in the House of Lords are “Baroness X” and their spouses get nothing. But that doesn’t affect the substance of what they do in government.

        I’m not going to argue the BRF is a modern, progressive institution. But it’s worth remembering that it has been headed by a woman for 129 of the past 181 years. Meghan has an opportunity to influence the dialogue. Like the Queen did (privately), when she fought Thatcher’s apartheid appeasement policies. Like Camilla does, with her anti-FGM work. There’s nothing preventing Meghan from accomplishing some truly feminist goals from within this archaic institution.

        And I do think it’s problematic that women are telling other women they can’t be feminists because of anti-feminist choices they’ve made. There’s nothing worse about this choice than being a stay at home mother, or taking your husband’s name, or wearing a hijab or getting plastic surgery.

      • Truthful says:

        @Tina:

        Britanicca encyclopedia definition

        Feminism: “the belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. ”

        This is what being a feminist pursue. It’s not just about “choices” .
        If you make only anti-feminism choices as in the definition ( being a stay at home mom or wearing a hijab or even getting plastic surgery do not have influence on feminism as defined as they are just simple personal choices) you aren’t a feminist.

        Becoming a duchess, having your whole life being the representation of female submissiveness (from outfits to behavior and lack of political views to advocating causes given to you, to be allowed to speak or not on certain issues) fall right in the middle of being everything BUT a feminist.

        Being a royal duchess equals falling in line (it’s not just a title, ask Fergie…), and this is very much what not being a feminist.

      • Tina says:

        I honestly don’t think people understand what the role of a modern royal is. It can be whatever you want it to be, within defined limits. I do agree that if you make nothing but anti-feminist choices, you can’t be considered a feminist. Not to pick on Kate too much, but I would side-eye any claims by Kate that she was a feminist, because she has literally never made a feminist choice in her life.

        However, there are female royals who could legitimately be described (and have been described) as feminists. Camilla has certainly made some choices that are anti-feminist, such as being a mistress for decades. But she has also done a great deal of work on feminist causes. She didn’t have to do that. No one forced her to. Sophie and Anne work on causes that, while not explicitly feminist, support equality of men and women in areas such as sport, disability and the military.

        I don’t accept that choosing to become a member of the British royal family automatically prevents a person from considering themselves, and being considered, a feminist. Now, Meghan hasn’t done much of anything yet. But I fully expect her to choose at least a few explicitly feminist causes to devote herself to.

      • Ravine says:

        “Becoming a duchess, having your whole life being the representation of female submissiveness (from outfits to behavior and lack of political views to advocating causes given to you, to be allowed to speak or not on certain issues) fall right in the middle of being everything BUT a feminist.”

        What you’re describing is the same for men and women in the royal family, though. Prince Harry can’t rock up to an event in surfer shorts and start trashing the Tory government either, can he?…

        Outside of titles, and some minor etiquette things like curtysing, I don’t see what’s so outrageously sexist about royalty, anyway. Prince Daniel, who married Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden, has to defer to his wife when it comes to some official protocol, but they seem to be equal partners otherwise. In fact, his role within the family is very similar to the role played by his sister-in-law Princess Sofia. Is it logical to say that Princess Sofia is oppressed and marginalised, whereas Prince Daniel isn’t, simply because she’s a woman and therefore must be a victim (somehow)?

        Or maybe the argument is that Prince Daniel is “allowed” to become royal because men are doing okay, whereas Meghan/Sofia is a selfish little Marie-Antoinette faux feminist, leaving her “sisters” behind while she marries a prince. Shame on her! No princesses until we’re ALL princesses! Is that it?… Because that hardly seems like treating men and women “equally.”

        Granted, as a Duchess she can’t be as outspoken a feminist as whatever ideal feminist you’re picturing: perhaps a hairy-armpitted, megaphone-brandishing activist in a pussy hat. Well, fine, I agree that the activist “wins” on the sliding scale of True Feminism. But first of all: Meghan can do lots of things to subtly change minds and set precedents. She opened the car door for Harry when they left for the reception; she gave a speech at her wedding; she’s at least MENTIONED things like Time’s Up and #MeToo in public while engaged; and I’m sure she’ll continue to normalize feminist ideas in countless small but cumulative ways, using her global platform, via speeches, patronages, causes, parenting decisions, etc. And second of all: she’s been a Duchess less than a month — give her a chance, geez! Maybe you’re right and she’ll do nothing, but we can’t call it yet. If you decide from the get-go that nothing she says/does/represents is valid JUST because in your opinion she chose the wrong in-laws, then feel free to pout in the corner while the rest of us cheer her on.

      • Sophia's side eye says:

        Ravine, thank you! You make so many excellent points. When I start seeing quotes from dictionaries someone has lost the plot. The BRF is an old and stuffy institution, but I don’t see it as anti female, haven’t for a long time.

        For instance, there are so many who say and feel that Kate did her “job” by having kids. Meanwhile actual Brits are saying that it was not her job, that she did not have to have children and the institution would simply find another person, male or female, to take over when the time comes. But people still persist with this narrative.

        Some are just going off of their own biases, and assumptions and not facts. People should at least get their facts straight if they’re so desperate to put Meghan in her place and take her feminist card away.

  10. LAK says:

    The titleholder keeps the title until death their death. The Yorkies will remain forever Yorks regardless. Even in the rare situation that someone else is granted their father’s title after his death.

    Unless Harry outlives Andrew who in turn dies when Charles is King, Harry has no claim to York. Given everyone’s expected lifespans that the title will go to Louis. Ditto Princess Royal to Charlotte.

    That said, there are only 2 scenarios of removing title without death being involved. Andrew voluntarily gives it up which is bloody unlikely or he is accused of treason and parliament strips him of it.

    Charles on his own, even as monarch can’t strip it from Andrew. The last time a royal duke was stripped of a title was at the turn of the last century in 1917 when the dukes of Albany, and Cumberland and Teviotdale sided with Germany against Britain in WW1. That was a treasonous act and parliament stripped them of their titles. However, those titles were suspended rather than merged with the crown which means their current claimants have legal right to reclaim the titles.

    • Cee says:

      Why can’t Harry get the title once his father is King and his Uncle dies? Louis can get it once Harry passes and if he doesn’t have any sons.

      • Bridget says:

        A better question is, why would he?

      • LAK says:

        Titles are held until death. Harry has to outlive Andrew to get the York title. Ditto Louis outliving Harry. And only if their respective fathers are Monarch.

        Therefore if Andrew outlives Charles, then Harry is ruled out of ever getting York because the next King would be William.

      • Tina says:

        Because Louis is closer to the throne than Harry, Harry already has a dukedom, it’s likely that Louis will marry before Harry dies, and there aren’t very many royal dukedoms available. It will be interesting to see if Edward is in fact given Edinburgh when Philip dies.

      • Cee says:

        @Tina – I always understood that Edward will be DoE when Charles becomes King and the titles go back to the Crown? Charles and Andrew are higher up the succession for the DoE title. So the titles go back to the Crown when Charles becomes King, and he in turn gives the title to his brother.

      • Tina says:

        @Cee, the DoE title will revert to the Crown, that’s right. In theory it would then go to Charles, as the eldest son of the present title-holder. But either the Queen (assuming Philip predeceases her) or Charles (if Philip doesn’t) could choose to award the DoE title to Edward, as has been rumoured.

    • Bridget says:

      That’s reportedly been the plan, for Edward to carry on as DoE. However, the question is whether or not it’s before or after the Queen passes. If Philip outlives the Queen, then it’s up to Charles whether or not to give the title (though it’s likely as that’s the plan). If Philip passes first, the Queen is supposedly planning on passing the title to Edward.

    • Lady D says:

      What kind of title would Charlotte’s little sister get if there can only be one Princess Royal? Is there a English equivalent to the Spanish Infanta?

    • DaisyCat says:

      I’ve heard it said that Andrew really wants Beatrice and Eugenie’s future husbands to be granted titles upon their marriage, just as Margaret’s husband Armstrong-Jones got Snowdon. Anne and Edward don’t seem to want it (witness Peter and Zara Phillips, Lady Louise rather than Princess Louise) but Andrew does.

      I’ve always been a bit surprised that he doesn’t petition his mother the Queen for an alteration to the letters patent that granted him the York title, to enable inheritance of that title through the female line (or at least a one-generation exemption). It seems like it’d be easier to ask for an adjustment to something he already has than to be given something he doesn’t yet have, and there is precedent for one-time female inheritance in the peerage, as mentioned above.

      Maybe it’d open up too many repercussions? In any case, it’ll be interesting to see what the Queen does at Eugenie’s wedding this November.

  11. ennie says:

    In which country do these types of titles are inherited by women? real question.

  12. Shannon says:

    *Shrug* I actually didn’t realize it was still that way; I don’t pay that much attention to the BRF to be honest, so this comes as an unpleasant shock to me. Kind of messed up imo but we have Donald Trump in office so England still wins.

  13. Tess says:

    I want to say that I HAVE read of a British woman or women who have inherited titles “so jure” or whatever the term is for “in their own right”. One was like a duchess and she only got it after being widowed and having no children/heirs, so she got to be duchess in her own right until her death. But it was a special thing, like the monarch bestowed it and I believe Parliament or whatever branch/authority had to approve it. But why anyone makes this an issue now over not yet conceived children is dumb, I mean the York girls are older and it would be more likely that IF an issue was raised it would be with them.

    • Becks1 says:

      The Duchess of Fife got it in her own right a century ago (I think.) There may have been others but that’s the one that stands out the most in my mind.

    • LAK says:

      The cases of women inheriting titles in their right are very rare outliers and only because those families were besties (or close relations) with the Monarch who made that special order for them, ratified by parliament.

      If you read the details of those special orders, these women were granted the titles as placeholders in one generation so that their direct male heirs could inherit after them. If the woman died without a male heir, then title would revert to the crown. In all cases the women had male heirs and titles passed along per the criteria of the special order.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @LAK Isn’t one of the Duke of Devonshire’s titles an example of this? From the 18th century? She was a patron of Mary Granville Delany’s I believe. She was a Bluestocking artist famous for her botanical paper mosaics. My grandmother likes them so I did some research to find something from her to give as a gift and I think I read that mixed in there. I think it is an English title.

      • LAK says:

        Magnoliarose, not the Devonshires. Long, unbroken line of male dukes. For that time frame, i think you are thinking of the Marlboroughs. The 2nd duke was a woman, daughter of the 1st duke.

  14. Nellyy says:

    @Lak, pls is there any remote possiblity that somehow, Meghan’s entrance into the RF will mordenise the 1000+ old institution or is it part of the OTT PR that accompanies every new entrant? Or will she simply fall in line and do what is expected like those before her? Eg, Sophie Camilla Kate et al?

  15. Bettyrose says:

    Wait? Downton Abbey has new episodes?

  16. Nellyy says:

    😀😀😀 Lak 😀😀😀😀. Diana, Fergie, Camilla, Sophie and Kate were all supposed to mordenise the monarchy. So, even the hardworking Sophie in whom the Queen is well pleased still hasn’t been able to cause a revolution in the monarchy, yet, somehow, Meghan’s entrance will change things. Is the RF not tired of the same wash, rinse, repeat PR line? Ive said here that Meghan will say and do ONLY what the RF approves. She will attend functions, events and do all the royal stuff like Camilla, Sophie etc al does and that is it. If the RF doesn’t want to change, no one will change it.

    • LAK says:

      Perhaps not Camilla. It took over a decade of a PR campaign to make her acceptable to the British public nevermind trying to sell her as a modernising influence on the monarchy. If anything she was downplayed at every turn.

    • homeslice says:

      The only one in that group who tried to go outside the lines was Diana. Sophie to an extent buggled things too. Only when she came back to the rules did she enjoy the success she has now and the favor of TQ. Fergie was a disaster too. There are lessons to be learned here. However boring we may find Kate, she is doing it right in many ways. She doesn’t seek to be bigger than her title/role.

  17. homeslice says:

    These threads are very educational! I enjoy them.
    My thought that is QE2 keeps thriving, she could live another 10 years like her mum. If they have all inherited her longevity, Charles, William and Harry, will be old (Charles is already at retired age) when anything changes regarding their titles. Charles probably never imagined that he would be POW for sooooo long. William is most likely banking on both his father and grandmother being in charge until he is an old man.

  18. Lainey says:

    Will will only become prince of wales when he’s fathers gives him the title. It’s not automatic passed on. He will become the Duke of Cornwall. And Charles can’t give Harry the Duke of York
    title if Andrew’s still alive.
    Also Charles brought up the fact women couldn’t inherit titles a few years back when they changed the law to allow girls to be heirs in their own right and he was accused of trying to stop the law from passing.

  19. Jenn says:

    I’m definitely naive , all the hype and glamour about the royal family and Harry/Meghan that I definitely had started forgetting about the practical matter of the royal family being sexist AF.
    I was always suspicious of the royal family and all institutions as a younger feminist … shows how you get duped as you get older.

  20. JRenee says:

    Sheesh, how can this be dumped in Meghan’s lap? This is not her battle.

  21. Nellyy says:

    Home slice, that’s excatly what I’ve always said. The only way Meghan will enjoy favor with the RF is by doing EXCATLY what they require of her just like Sophie does. Besides Diana and Fergie, no Royal wife has stepped out of line. They say what is expected of th and do what the Royal Family wants them to do. Meghan won’t be any different.

    • LAK says:

      Except for Diana, no modern wife has stepped out of line. Plenty of examples in ye old times, including 2 that started a rebellion to unseat their own husbands with mixed results – one failed (Eleanor of Aquitaine) and the other one succeeded (Isabella of France).

      Fergie was careless rather than deliberately rebellious like Diana.

      • Truthful says:

        Isabella of France was queen , daughter and sister of kings, that’s how she managed, by relying on her brothers and uncle, otherwise she would have had achieved it if other significant males interests wouldn’t have been at stake. (they didn’t help her out of solidarity)… sadly.

      • LAK says:

        Truthful: I’m not suggesting that these 2 women didn’t have help, but the point remains that they didn’t quietly or meekly accept their lot as dictated by their royal husbands/family, but made a plan and executed it. The fact that said plan was aligned to the interests of their own relatives was a bonus for them because it helped them raise the necessary help.

      • Truthful says:

        @LAK: actually Isabella of France’s plan was forged… by Philippe le Long and Charles Valois (brother, king of France, uncle duke of Burgundy) while she was overstaying in France ( at first she wasn’t even aware that her overstay was part of the plan)

        Her plan, was the plan for France’s realm best interests, she came aware of the plan way way much later. She was an instrument of it more than an actor. Her son was the one tooking over and making his own plans.

        As incredibly intelligent as Isabelle de France was, she was played by Philippe le long her brother who used her frustration to be married to a gay man to his best interest ( introducing a potential lover, forming the idea of taking her husband kingdom)

        But Philippe le Long died and the valois took over and the rest is history.

        What I am trying to say, is yes some women overcomed their given path, because they were the most convenient vehicle of a male’s interests at the time.

        If you are interested in incredible women in royal history take a look to Brunehaut de Bourgogne (crazy fierce women)

        But then again we are talking about Queens and rulers at the top position in already top families, with the ability the have a big influences on politics, security… not about someone marrying someone 6th in line in the BRF of the 21th century asreduced to its decorative trait.

        ps: loved this thread by the way ! I love history

      • LAK says:

        Her son was too young to be aware of any plans, nevermind execute them or improve upon them.

        Isabelle had long been frustrated by her husband’s preference for his favourites and how that affected his governing decisions which were ruining England. That frustration simmered for many years as she was relegated to second banana in her own marriage whilst the King lavished them with money, wealth, power etc at cost to the Kingdom, and her own efforts to act as diplomat in England and abroad.

        When the opportunity came to get away from her husband, by way of volunteering to be his diplomatic envoy to her brother in the long-standing England vs France disputes, she jumped at the chance. By this time she’d built up her own power base of nobles at court and in France and was fully aware of the plans being made.

        And once in France, she joined up with her new lover, her brother and other rebellious English nobles. The only fly in the ointment was that she couldn’t usurp in her own name and be accepted in England even if the cause was just. The solution was to lie to the English King to get him to send her son to France under the pretence of obeisence by proxy to the King of France. This obeisance had long been a bone of contention between the 2 kings and sending the son seemed like the perfect solution to the English King because he saved face by not being seen to do it in person.

        Once she had her son in her keeping, she openly declared war on her husband…..in the name of her son which simultaneously fit nicely with France’s plans and gave ready support.

        And as she was fighting in the name of her son, the English mostly sided with her which made victory easy and quick. She was regent for her underage son for the next 3yrs until he was 17yrs old when he wrestled control from her and became King properly.

        It matters not that the plans were made by men, she was a willing participant. She wasn’t tricked nor persuaded to join. By the time of that ‘diplomatic mission’ she already hated her husband and his favourites.

      • Truthful says:

        @Lak: I didn’t express myself well but I thought of her son as in later in years (decades after that)

        “It matters not that the plans were made by men, she was a willing participant. She wasn’t tricked nor persuaded to join. By the time of that ‘diplomatic mission’ she already hated her husband and his favourites.”

        I never said she wasn’t tricked… I said she was used. very different.

        She was a willing participant BUT was made aware later of the full plan (this plan got a change of dynasty in France as Charles Valois was scheming).

        But the initial plan was long made by Philippe king of France, even before Isabelle put her foot in France (Philippe was at the moment second in line after his brother Louis le Hutin, and the later had a daughter , that was his heir, even if there were doubt that she was a bastard)
        Philipe, who was third in line worked so he can turn Isabelle against their , then King, brother, so he used the fact that she was frustrated with her husband to lure her in France ( even her father before, Philippe le Bel didn’t care to invite her before that, even while knowing what she was enduring because he wanted her to be his eyes and ears in England).

        Her new lover was introduced to her by Philipe le Long, as was the idea to have her son.

        Philippe (who was extremely smart) became King using his sister ( promise to help her against her husband in exchange she sided him to declare their brother mad… and helping having his daughter call a bastard, and having his infant son dead… yeah it was a loving family…)

        But moreover Isabelle helped having a law put in France’s kingdom called “loi salique” that insure no woman can rule (before that the first born was queen/king)… yeah that was the (ugly) price of her deal… she didn’t care as wasn’t feeling concerned (..; but regretted it deeply later when her turn came to claim the kingdom of France.) and it turned out having her standing for this mysoginsitic law was… actually to bare her from supposedly claiming the kingdom was all along the plan from the Valois side (and have a change of dynasty… these cousins Valois were brilliantly machiavielic)

        The plan to start war with her husband was there all along, Philippe always dreamt of being double king… as did their dad.

        She hated her husband sure… of course she wasn’t tricked but she was an element not the master of the plan.

        PS: her marriage to her husband was already a scheme of her dad to have his hands on England… he perfectly knew what he was putting her into… as she was, but accepted it for..France. her nickname in France’s History is the “wolf of France”

        PS2: really really looooooove this thread

      • LAK says:

        Truthful: Me too vis a vis this discussion.

        It’s funny that she’s called the wolf of France because she’s given a similar name in England. One of the famous 4 She-Wolves of England.

        I think the mutual claims of each other’s territories by the various Kings of France and England meant they were always plotting by whatever means necessary to unseat each other. By peaceful means or foul means or outright war. As the English Barons had strong ties to France, their allegiance was easy to influence by the French King.

        Regarding the point of her son, until the Tudors, every woman who tried to rule in their own right was met with hostility. Isabelle, by hapstance or design, was clever in ursurping in the name of her son rather than herself. It legitimised her actions in the eyes of the English even if she was later discredited.

        The Valois…..what a dynasty. Machiavellian is an apt description. I first became interested in them after watching LE REINE MARGOT. Started with that dying end of the family and worked backwards to their power grab.

  22. Jessica says:

    This is not important at all. All that matters is their kids get HRH at birth which is possible but not automatic. I hope The Queen gives it to their kids and not wait for Charles.

    • LAK says:

      Their children have no right to the HRH as long as the Queen is alive. Their children are outside the criteria necessary to gain an HRH.

      IF the Queen decides to grant their kids the HRH, it will be a gift because she wants to give it. She is under no obligation to do so.

      • Jessica says:

        I already know that; that’s why I was wondering if they will get it. She did it for Charlotte and Louis (yes I know their father will be King).

      • Rhys says:

        @LAK real question – who has the right to HRH in British royal family?

      • Jessica says:

        @Rhys from Wiki:

        According to letters patent issued by King George V in 1917 the sons and daughters of sovereigns and the male-line grandchildren of sovereigns are entitled to the style. It is for this reason that the daughters of the Duke of York, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie carry the HRH status, but the children of the Princess Royal, Peter Phillips and Zara Tindall do not. The children of the Earl of Wessex, at the request of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, are styled as those of an Earl, thus are Lady Louise and Lord Severn. Under his letters patent, only the oldest son of the oldest living son of the Prince of Wales was also entitled to the style but not younger sons or daughters of the oldest living son of the Prince of Wales. Queen Elizabeth II changed this in 2012 prior to the birth of Prince George of Cambridge so that all the children of the oldest living son of the Prince of Wales would bear the style. This returned it to the format Queen Victoria had instituted in 1898.

      • LAK says:

        Jessica: She had to do it for Charlotte and Louis. Prior to that change, only one child (eldest son) had the right. Leaving them out whilst their brother is automatically HRH Prince would have been truly bad optics and caused consternation to see such visible inequality even if it’s made up superficial titles.

        Rhys: the children / grandchildren of the monarch in the MALE line as well as all the children of the ELDEST son of the POW have the right to HRH Prince(ss). Anyone who marries the MALES with this right is extended the HRH part of it, but automatically loses it in the event of a divorce.

      • Jessica says:

        @LAK

        She didn’t ‘have’ to, she chose to. She can give H&M’s kids HRH’s immediately if she wants to or not. I’m just curious if she will or not. That’s all.

      • LAK says:

        In the case of William’s kids, there was a glaring inequality between the siblings enforcable because of rules. Doing nothing would have meant an own goal and a threat to the monarchy. Ditto why she finally acted upon the gender inheritance rule even though it was discussed as long ago as Charles + Diana’s first pregnancy. A glaring inequality that would have been an own goal if left unchecked.

        Her history shows that she only acts to protect the family/ monarchy, and in Harry’s case, there is no inequality. The kids are equal and will be elevated when/ if Charles becomes king. She gains /loses nothing by doing nothing.

        That is what i mean by saying she *had* to do something about William’s kids.

      • Jessica says:

        @LAK

        I’m aware of everything you are saying so you don’t have to explain it to me.

        My point is The Queen can give their kids HRH at their birth if she wants to. I’m not saying she has to or she will but she can. There’s nothing to argue about that.

  23. Jessica says:

    I love how whenever an issue like this is brought to attention (a centuries-old issue at that) ‘feminists’ on this site use it to attack Meghan. This doesn’t make Meghan a fake feminist in the same way it doesn’t make any left-leaning female Senator a fake feminist because ERA hasn’t been passed or any female in the military a fake feminist because of the inequality in that institution.

    People always show their true colors. Meghan will continue to advocate for women in the UK and abroad with or without her daughters having a fluffy title.

    • magnoliarose says:

      Totally. Because it is feminism to attack other feminists or maybe the original poster isn’t a feminist at all! The horror.
      Feminism is about being able to make choices freely without societal expectations and pressure. If she didn’t marry Harry because feminists objected then she isn’t free. The idea of women owning another woman’s agency is just inverted patriarchy.

    • Janie says:

      What exactly has she done that constitutes her being a feminist? Anyone can say they are. I’m actually curious. She had a job like many women. Look at some of the small roles she’s had in film. They’re pretty much the opposite of a feminist. Blow job, maid in garter belt bent over with bare butt, sexy bar b que person. You’d think those would be roles she would have turned down identifying as a feminist.
      This from upthread. Trudeau isn’t a feminist. He’s whipped!!

      • Rhys says:

        Nobody owes The Feminism Police the prove they are real feminist. If I’m identifying as such and trying to navigate through life with the mindset that men and women have equal social, economic and political rights, thats being a feminist.

      • Jessica says:

        Are you serious Janie?? There isn’t a feminist test that one has to pass but A. she identifies as one B. she advocates for the equality of women (especially girls education by making sure girls have access to menstrual products). She was a UN advocate that focused on women and girls for 5 years.

        Does she pass for you?

      • Janie says:

        I was serious in my question. I wasn’t attacking her. Everyone has their own definition of feminism. The fact that she accepted those roles go against what I personally think a woman who calls herself a feminist would take.
        Jessica you don’t have to be so aggressive. Its conversation and we are allowed to question. Why so angry?

      • Jessica says:

        @Janie

        Please don’t play that ‘I’m angry’ card when I responded to your overly sarcastic and flat out rude comment (calling Trudeau whipped, taking shots at her acting roles). Don’t play victim, it isn’t becoming.

      • M.A.F. says:

        You know it is ones own free will to give a blow job. Feminism. It is also free will to be a maid in a garter belt bent over with her bare butt. Feminism. And she got paid to do it. Feminism.

      • M.A.F. says:

        @Veronica- You clearly did not read the full post. I’m going off of what was said. Go read what Janie said. She’s upset about the type of roles MM took. Therefore, nothing in what I said was about a woman selling her body, NOTHING. You made that assumption by not reading the whole thread so I suggest you go re-read the post. And if a woman wants to sell her body, be a stripper or a porn star, that is her decision. There is a difference between choosing vs. being forced into a job and that is not what we are talking about here. So, no I am not incorrect.

      • Lex says:

        Lol @ veronica you sell your body and mind every day when you get paid to go to work.

    • Vanessa says:

      I couldn’t agree more the moment the word feminism comes up people use that as a excuse to attack Meghan . She champions woman issue what more do people want for her as a feminist is she not entitled to love she should lived a lonely life without the men she loves to prove a point to bunch of women who clearly don’t like anyway . It’s madness doesn’t any sense this just a excuse to attack Meghan plain and simple everything

  24. Jasmine18 says:

    For the vast majority of people, titles are redundant and archaic.

    I’d say it would be more modern to decline a title whatever the gender of their children. Who really thinks it will be relevant in the years to come? I sincerely hope not but I’m probably hopelessly outnumbered on that score……….

    • homeslice says:

      Yes to this. I find it all fascinating, but I really can’t imagine how this means anything in 2018.

      I wonder if TQ lives another 10 years, how accepting will the public be of a 79 yr old King who has fluctuating approval ratings as it is…

    • AmandaPanda says:

      Exactly! Poor old Prince “no one wants to be royal” Harry can put his money where his mouth is and decline. But I bet they won’t – because when it comes down to it being an HRH is incredibly desirable and they’ll want their kids to have one. I will be enormously impressed if they decline titles but am not holding my breath.

      • Masamf says:

        @Amandapanda, if the royals lived their lives based on what will impress their critics, theirs would be very miserable lives. No matter how they try, they can never live up to the higher than normal standards you want them to live up to. But even if they tried, you’d still find something to criticize them about so theirs is a lose lose kinda situation. So, deciding to live their lives the best way they can is the best way to go about it. These people can’t win regardless.

      • AmandaPanda says:

        Eh? Have a sit down and a biscuit, dear.

        Harry is on the record as saying he thinks being royal is dreadful and a real burden. Why would you inflict that on your children?

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @Amandapanda

        Come on……No need to be so rude to MasamF. Besides, I think you’ll find that what Harry actually said was that “No one wants to be King/Queen”.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40363063

        He did NOT say no one wants to be *royal*, as you asserted.

        There’s a big difference there, methinks.

        @ MasamF

        You are 100% right. (As usual).

      • Jasmine18 says:

        I think Harry and William would happily be super rich land-owning aristos like some of their friends with unpronounceable double-barreled names.

        All of the fun, all of the perks, none of the duties and public scrutiny.

  25. Snap Happy says:

    For all the people dragging Meghan for not being feminist enough, consider this – for most of human history marriage was about inheritance and alliances. The fact that she married for love and of her own free will is a feminist statement!

  26. InPurgatory says:

    I love the pagentry and the ohhh-Ing and ahhh-Ing over a royal wedding as well as most…..

    BUT. Yes here it comes….

    As an American, I find this obsession with all things “Meagan Goes To London” to be quite over the top.

    I admit I smirked a bit at the “I quit caring about royal weddings in 1776” meme because, well…..seriously the concept of a “royal family” in this day and age just kind of royally annoys me. And that so many are fawning over the fairytale? Remember Di, folks. Oh I know, MMs in her late 30s, she’s experienced, blah blah blah

    She sold her American soul for a price. And she’ll be royally paid. And yes, it will cost her royally too.

    Now I’m annoyed at myself for all those “royals”. I’ll see myself out. My unicorn needs to be fed.

    • Rhys says:

      “Sold her American soul”? Haha. Are you from any of the former Soviet republics by any chance? Because that’s how they used to brainwash us back in the USSR. We, the soviets, were a part of our country and our government, forever attached to it and its agenda. Soviet souls. If anyone ever tells me that I have some sort of national “soul” I just won’t stop laughing.

      • InPurgatory says:

        I’m glad you are laughing because it’s a hyperbolic joke made largely in reference to the history between USA declaring its independence from jolly ole England. Hence the reference to the 1776 memes.

        It’s humor and snark. On Cele-BITCHY. Get it?😜

  27. Kitty says:

    Why do some of you guys want their kids to be prince/princess title so bad?

    • homeslice says:

      I know. It’s not like any of them with the title have been wildly successful in life…many have been downright miserable.

    • Jenn says:

      For me it’s just The principle.
      If they have girls they won’t have that title (aka prestige) if they have boys they will? That’s my understanding – am I wrong?
      If Im not – That’s sexist to me. Unfair.
      But I admit I am totally confused because when I saw that Charlotte had “changed history” in that her baby brother won’t jump her spot just because he’s a boy – I just asssumed the royal family no longer made decisions or granted prestige based on gender.
      I’m not British though so it’s not like an “OmG !”for me (I don’t pay for any of it). More like just a “how typical/smdh” thing. I just don’t like sexism.

    • Ginth says:

      They won’t be either way. Harry is so far down in the line of succession of being a King himself, does it make sense to make his kids Princes/Princesses when they are never gonna see the throne? Nor will they ever be as popular or as famous as the Cambridge heirs. They will simply be little Lords or Ladies, Counts or Earls at the very most. Keep in mind that not all of QE2 own grandkids have those titles. She only offered the style of Princes/Princesss to Charles and Andrew and Edwards kids were only ever offered the styling of Lord and Lady. Annes kids were also offered the title of Lord and Lady only but she turned it down.

      Meghan herself won’t be doing the same types of duties that Kate does. She won’t be travelling around the world meeting world leaders, going on Royal tours, hosting fancy dinner galas at BP or KP,etc . Which is funny, since she told people mag over the weekend that she did not want to be the one doing ribbon cuttings and lunches. The Queen got jokes, cause that story appeared and then they announce she will be doing ribbon cuttings and a lunch

      • LAK says:

        Charles, Andrew and Edward’s kids are automatically HRH Prince(ess). That is the law for the children of the SONS of the Monarch.

        Edward requested his earl title and his children are thus styled as the children of an earl, but their legal right to claim their HRH Prince(ess) style remains.

        As Females, Anne and Margaret can not pass on any titles. The law excludes DAUGHTERS of the Sovereign. Their children are given the titles of their husbands. In both cases the Queen offered titles to their husbands, and whilst Anne’s husband turned the offer down, Margaret’s husband accepted. That is the only reason Anne’s kids don’t have titles whilst Margaret’s kids have they titles / style of the children of an Earl.

      • Lyla says:

        It’s not that the queen didn’t offer prince(ss) titles to Edward’s and Anne’s kids…Edward and Sophie choose not to style their kids as prince or princess. According to the 1917 letters patent, because they are the sovereign’s grandchildren from the male line, Louise and James can go by princess or prince if they so choose. The queen doesn’t have to offer it to them. As for Anne’s kids, they don’t automatically get the prince and princess titles, because they are not descended from the male line of the monarch. The Queen did offer Mark Phillips a title so that the kids would get one, but Anne and Mark refused it. When Charles become king, H&M’s kids would be able to use the titles princess and princess because they will be the grandchildren of the sovereign from the male line.

      • Lizabeth says:

        @Ginth— As was pointed out several times on another thread, Meghan didn’t say what you claim. She said she wanted to work rather than be a “lady who lunches.” (A reference to rich shallow women who don’t have anything to do except lunch with each other. Not a reference to avoiding eating lunch at events!) She never mentioned not wanting to do ribbon-cuttings but Will and Harry have said that about themselves. She will be traveling the world with Harry as CW Youth Ambassador. She will meet foreign leaders just as other members of the BRF have who aren’t Kate.

        I guess this is just another attempt in a barrage of attempts to make Kate’s life sound so much better than Meghan’s (as if Kate has ever looked very excited about going to state dinners, etc anyway) The two women certainly will lead different lives and are married to very different men. But like it or not, Meghan will be on the world stage too.

  28. M.A.F. says:

    Very educational thread. I’ve learned that 1. the British Parliament seems kind of lazy when dealing with archaic laws. Sure, they will debate them but then decide to not actually do anything because, ugh, writing. 2. Some of you have, IMO, some very odd notions of what being a feminist is. I don’t recall MM painting herself the “feminist savior” of the Monarch, that to me were the stans & the American (& possibly the British) press. And 3. WOW. I don’t know how some you keep up with the rules & the on-goings on who-got-what-Dukedom- when. I feel like a need a flow chart or a PowerPoint/Prezi presentation. It’s impressive.

    Carry on.

    • Truthful says:

      Man that comment made my day!

      Concur to all 3 points! strongly.

    • Ashley says:

      LOL @ MAF

      I think some people need better hobbies.

    • LAK says:

      MAF: It’s simply an interest in history. The current royal family of any country are viewed in the realms of gossip, but honestly when you open a history book about any family worldwide, their history is exactly the same as the conversations we are having on this page. And royal families have huge influence on the social history of their countries on top of the political influences they once had.

      It seems meaningless in the present because they are not selling us a talent, but aspects of their lives. It’s fascinating to see this PR game to keep themselves on top because this hasn’t changed since they first elected themselves top of the tree in ye old times. The titles and baubles awarded to favourites, pictures of themselves (and their babies), showing themselves publicly, meeting the plebs to pretend to be concerned by the plebs’ concerns. Etc etc and so forth. And making it very obvious that they depend on public goodwill to stay on top.

      The only thing that changes is the cast of characters.

    • Tina says:

      We grew up with this stuff, and some of us (LAK especially) are good at recalling it. I was trained as a lawyer, and this is part of the law of our country. It’s not really any more obscure than US Supreme Court jurisprudence (seriously, someone please explain the homophobic bakers thing again).

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “It’s not really any more obscure than US Supreme Court jurisprudence (seriously, someone please explain the homophobic bakers thing again).”

        The SCOTUS didn’t rule that it was OK to discriminate, they said the lower state commission didn’t properly do their job when it was being handled at the lower level. In essence, SCOTUS dodged making a ruling on the matters of the case and focused on a technicality.

      • Tina says:

        Thanks Tiffany! That’s really helpful. I guess Roberts meant it when he said that he wanted them to have narrow rulings.

      • Dixiebells says:

        I think Roberts is right to want narrow rulings. This case specifically got a lot of attention because of the social justice element. But they technically ruled on the legal question they were presented with. Which was somewhat detailed and technical. So it’s not a sweeping ruling on the rights of gay people when engaging in public marketplaces. Yet. The SCOTUS does need to be careful about being too activist. That case will come but the SCOTUS will have much more lower court precedent to work with by the time it does. Which is how they should do it. It’s not dissimilar from the path of desegregation and abortion and gay marriage. Now of course this is assuming our esteemed orange dictator hasn’t blown the whole thing up by then :(

  29. emerald eyes says:

    I always thought it was a darn shame Charlotte wasn’t born first. Maybe some other dice would tumble down after.

    But it will have to wait for George’s kids.

  30. Missy says:

    I’m convinced that it’s the same negative people posting over and over again about Meghan on message boards and social media. The comments are eerily similar. Meghan never said she wanted to be queen or that she was going to modernize the monarchy. I have never read about her or Harry wanting their children to have titles. She is not giving interviews to People magazine or the Daily Mail, those articles are clickbait.

  31. Nellyy says:

    @LAK 10000000+ for you. But do you think Britain’s monarchy would ever go the way the now extinct monarchy in France went? The RF seems to have good survival skills but I’m one of those that still believe that the humongous funds that Britain spends on enriching these royals is not at all commensurate with the supposed “work” they do, whatever that is. Charles gives scholarships from a trust that is made up of taxpayers money, so can we really say he is giving out scholarships out of his personal funds? What do the royals really do to deserve this excessive life of luxury that they live in? Seriously. I keep wondering aloud. They don’t do the kind of real hard work that other entrepreneurs do to become successful. They are excessively rich just for being born in the right womb. Can Charles, William, Harry, Kate, Andrew, and most of the royals compete in the real business world with the likes of Jack Ma, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Tyler Perry etc who were not handed riches on a platter of gold, who started from the bottom and still succeed?

    • LAK says:

      Regarding the taxpayer money or even general remuneration for the work they do, you are preaching to the choir here. I’ll add that there has been corruption and embezzlement, but as they took steps to make it almost impossible to prove it OR the govt / establishment doesn’t have the will to pursue the point because that would distabilize the system. Eg a few years ago, parliament carried out a review on royal financial planning and discovered mismanagement, wastage and laisser faire attitude to financial planning. A report was written (available on the parliament website) that reflected their findings, but then parliament shrugged.

      Would they make it in the real world? I think that’s applicable to regular people regardless of circumstances. The people you mention are outliers by any standards. Geniuses.

      That said, looking at their personal achievements with the platform they are given, i think Charles, Andrew and Harry would make it in the real world. They’ve achieved something with their platform even if in Andrew’s case it was personal wealth rather than charitable good works. I think Charles and Harry have shown drive and ambition for the things they want to achieve.

      William wouldn’t make it. He has no interests or drive and does nothing without explicit instructions. Kate would be OK because she would do exactly the same thing – find a rich man to marry and be a rich SAHM.

  32. Himmiefan says:

    Primogeniture for the British nobility will end one day. A lot of women like Diana Spencer have been hurt by being “worthless” daughters. I so appreciate Article 1, section 9 of the US Constitution which outlaws a system of nobility. That alone greatly helped the standing of women in US society.

  33. Dana says:

    Andrew is the Duke of York till he dies there can’t be two. Harry will be the Duke of Sussex you can’t just swap. There is no guarantee that Harrys children will be Prince or Princess. Prince Edward has 2 children Lady Louise and the Viscount of Severn they do not have the HRH Prince or Princess titles, Edward and Sophie chose that. There is talk Prince Edward will become the Duke of Edinburgh when his father passes away. Edward has taken the reigns of his fathers Duke of Edinburgh Award which is very highly regarded.

  34. Em says:

    A female could inherit the title if there were no sons, but the Queen would have to make a special edict/decree regarding that particular title , it has been done before. Most such titles have been created with special remainders to allow women to inherit them but a scant few have had additions made to the title (before the holder died) for the eldest female child to inherit . Well over a century since that happened but there is precedent. The Title and the Estate are two different things so the girls can inherit any money/land etc with no problems (rarely is an estate entailed to the title). The thing is of course that as it stands if Harry produces only girls the title will pass to the next male relative that would be William I presume.

    • LAK says:

      What you are describing is rare outliers in all cases.

      A female can inherit the throne if their are no sons, but that ruling is only applicable to the throne and not the aristocracy.

      For aristocracy, no female can inherit the title nor estate. The rare outliers who did were granted special orders to do so in one generation provided the estate went to a male heir upon their death. In all such cases, the family were besties or related to the monarch and the favour was being granted as a very special favour. It also had to be agreed by parliament.

      The entire estate + title are entailed to the male heir. The other siblings, whether regardless of gender are given some money dependant on the whims of the estate owner, but it is usually peanuts compared to the value of the estate and most times they get nothing at all. This has caused problems for centuries, but it is the accepted system. And how the great estates have survived intact for centuries.

      For the aristocracy, if a man has only daughters and no sons, and no male heirs can be found no matter how tenuous, parliament has to rule on the division of his entailed estate. This is always treated on a case by case basis instead of general law. And each case doesn’t create a precedent. The title reverts to the crown.

  35. Jessica says:

    @veronica

    You’re not really making sense. You clearly want to use this title issue as a way to attack Meghan. It’s whatever, I won’t entertain you anymore.

  36. Tina says:

    The point is not that every decision Meghan or anyone makes is a feminist decision. Many of them are not feminist decisions at all. But the point is that she, and the rest of us, are allowed to call ourselves feminists if we believe in the principles. Even if the decisions we make are sometimes not feminist at all. Feminism is in enough trouble without self-appointed warriors deciding who’s good enough to call herself a feminist.

  37. Vanessa says:

    First of all Veronica feminist is about choice You are not the feminist police you do not get to tell woman how they choose to live their life because you deemed their actions or choices are not what you deemed are feminist choices. It’s Meghan right as woman if she choose to identify as feminist and by all accounts Meghan consider herself a feminist. Your brand of feminism is to cut down woman and to be nasty and rude to people who don’t agree with you