To catch up on all things Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, and the royal family, make sure you check out our Royal Hub. We’ve got you completely covered.
Since Meghan Markle and Prince Harry were married in May, we’ve watched on obsessively as they navigate the weird and often archaic rules of the British royal family.
They’re not allowed to engage in public displays of affection, use social media, sign autographs or take selfies, and have to walk behind Prince William and Kate Middleton at all times. Oh, AND THEY’RE NOT TO EAT SHELLFISH.
But now, perhaps the most bizarre of all royal rules has been unearthed, and it all has to do with custody arrangements.
According to royal expert Marlene Koenig, who spoke to news.com.au, “The sovereign has legal custody of the minor grandchildren”.
That is, Queen Elizabeth II, and not Prince William and Kate Middleton, has custody of Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis, and when Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have children of their own, the same rule will apply.
"This goes back to King George I [who ruled in the early 1700s], and the law’s never been changed," said Koenig. "He did it because he had a very poor relationship with his son, the future King George II, so they had this law passed that meant the King was the guardian of his grandchildren."
Interestingly, this is why matters surrounding divorce work differently in the royal family. For Prince Charles and Diana, as well as Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, custody arrangements weren't included in divorce documents "because they did not legally have custody of their children to begin with".
According to Koenig, however, the palace "doesn't make a big deal" of the rule in 2018.
Which is fair enough.
Considering it's ridiculous.
Top Comments
I often hear of parents of young children threatening to deny their parents access to the grandchildren. Sometimes for very good reasons. Grandpop inappropriately touched his two young daughters when they were small, and now his grown daughters don't want to risk the same happening to their children. Understandable. Sometimes, it's because a daughter-in-law felt that her mother-in-law was mean to her little girl because the mother-in-law gave a more expensive toy as a Christmas gift to an older cousin and a less expensive toy to the other child, still a toddler. Both girls were very pleased with Grandma's presents, but the one daughter-in-law didn't like it. So now she's telling her husband that Grandma needs to apologize, or she'll be denied access to "her" children.
These sad situations happen in families every day. And I don't blame the British royal family for making sure it doesn't happen to the Queen.
It wasn't really about ensuring loving family relationships, it was more about power and George I wanting his grandkids brought up how he wanted and reinforcing that he was king.
I suppose that's true, Ally. And also, it means that the adult offspring and their spouses (or estranged spouses, or ex-spouses) will be legally prohibited from removing youngsters who are in the line of succession to some faraway place, without the express permission of the monarch.
So, for example, Diana was prohibited from settling off to New York City or Los Angeles and taking one or both of her sons - the young princes - with her. Because if the present monarch were to die suddenly, and then the heir (Prince Charles) were to die soon afterwards - or to become permanently incapacitated, - young Prince William would become the monarch. And under those circumstances, the monarch must immediately be on the move, with the goal of being within a stone's throw of Buckingham Palace.
The mission statement of "The Firm": is The King is dead; Long live the King!"
I suppose that's true, Ally. And also, it means that the adult offspring and their spouses (or estranged spouses, or former spouses) will be legally prohibited from removing youngsters who are in the line of succession to some faraway place, without the express permission of the monarch.
So, for example, Diana was prohibited from taking off to New York City or Los Angeles and de facto settling there, accompanied by one or both of her sons - the young princes. Because if the present monarch were to die suddenly, and if the heir (Prince Charles) were to die soon afterwards - or to become permanently incapacitated, - young Prince William would become the monarch. And under those circumstances, the new monarch must immediately be on the move, with the goal of being within a stone's throw of Buckingham Palace.
The King is dead; Long live the King!"
This stuff is all to do with where "in line" the royal grandchildren & great-grandchildren are.
The life of a future king or queen is all bound up in British Law.
Charles will be the next king of Britain, followed by William, then little George, little Charlotte then baby Louis.
I think Harry comes next - followed by any children he & Meghan produce.
The safety & security of the Queen & her family members is of the greatest concern to British security........particularly when it comes to terrorism.
Regardless of how the public personally feel about the royal family , British morale is at stake when it comes to this family - not to mention it's value as a tourist draw -card.