A Royal Conundrum: People Need to CHILL

    Hello, lovelies! It's barely 8 am and already this Thursday is gearing up to be a dramatic one! I'm going to be delving into some royal history today so if that isn't your thing, I'm giving you permission to click off. But for those of you who stayed, let's discuss the chaos. Yesterday, People released an article detailing the baptism of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's daughter, Lilibet. She was born on June 2nd, 2021 in Santa Barbra, taking her name from the now-late Queen, Elizabeth II, whose childhood nickname was Lilibet. In this article, the quoted spokesperson for the Sussexes refers to the 1 1/2-year-old as 'Princess Lilibet'. And the internet collectively lost their minds. 
     At the time of both their birth's, Lilibet and her older brother Archie, were great-grandchildren of the monarch. This meant that they wouldn't receive formal titles at that time. Why? Because formal titles, by law, are only given to male-line grandchildren of the monarch. Now, you may be wondering why George, Charlotte, and Louis, also great-grandchildren, had formal titles at birth. Allow me to explain. A previous Letter's Patent, issued in 1917 by King George V, declared that only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall hold and enjoy the title of HRH with Prince/ss before their name. This was done to slim down the monarchy in a post-war world that had just toppled four powerful, centuries-old institutions. Had this still been in effect, only George would have an HRH with a princely title while Charlotte and Louis would only be styled as the children of a Duke (Lady and Lord with no HRH). Months before the birth of Prince George, following the Perth Agreement, Her Majesty issued new LP's granting an HRH and princely title to ALL the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. So that's why they've had titles since birth. Back to Archie and Lilibet.
    Because they are not the children of the Prince of Wales's eldest son and because they weren't yet grandchildren of the monarch, the Sussex children weren't automatically granted titles; that's the only reason, despite what many news outlets would like you to believe. Now, when King Charles ascended the throne, their right to titles changed because now they were grandchildren of the monarch. The 1917 LP guarantees titles to male-line grandchildren. Therefore, they've always had the titles since September. That fact is not up for dispute. No matter what you may think of their parents, the titles cannot be taken from them without action from the monarch. And despite current relations, I don't think the King would ever take away something that is their birthright. It connects them to their family and this tradition that they will always belong to them. And people are calling the King weak and going crazy online but it's kind of genius. Your son and daughter-in-law have been saying things about your family for months. Writing books and giving interviews about how terrible you are. But now they're going to accept titles from an institution they claim hurt them so profoundly? Kind of shoots their credibility way down if you ask me. 
     And honestly, I don't have a problem with them getting titles. I have problems with Harry and Meghan and some of the stuff they've done but the kids have their whole lives ahead of them and I for one, am interested to see what they turn out to be. I hope it's people who are good and inspiring and kind. Now, you may have an opinion or you may be totally indifferent. I just don't think it's right to be going after anyone for recognizing the titles that is rightfully theirs. And with that, let's get on with our day and worry about stuff with actual consequence!

XO,
​Caroline