![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Harry, Megan, Really?
Jan. 9th, 2020 07:57 amLooking at the reaction of the UK media to Harry and Megan announcing they're stepping back from being 'senior royals', they seem a little...unhinged? (I admit I'm struck by the right royal irony of Piers Morgan calling anyone else on the planet a spoiled brat.)
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Charles intends to streamline the monarchy after his mother passes. Part of that was to be the sidelining of his brothers, but Andrew has helpfully made himself redundant already thanks to spectacularly bad decision making. But if this is true, and Andrew, Edward, and possibly Anne were to be downgraded, that sets a precedent. While Charles is king and William steps up to Prince of Wales, Harry might have a somewhat increased role, but that will have a shelf date.
Charles is already pushing 72. While his father is hanging on well, the male Windsors don't tend to run into their nineties. His will likely not be one of history's longer reigns. When William becomes king (assuming, of course, that the monarchy survives both the current queen and Charles), Harry and family become somewhat surplus to requirements given the 'streamlined monarchy', the precedent of Charles' siblings being downgraded, and William's three children who will all be either reaching or already of an age to be visible and useful. (As a reminder, they're currently 6, 4, and 1. Given another few years of ERII plus 5-10 of Charles, they'll be just fine carrying the flag and the name without Harry, Megan, and Archie.)
So this seems like it's just the first step in an inevitable transition, and a rather logical step - why raise their son and any other children they may have in the media crucible of being first tier royals, when they can step back now and try to raise him for his inevitable non-royal role? Why all the hysteria? Is this just the tabloids throwing a temper tantrum that Harry is still refusing to play by their rules?
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Charles intends to streamline the monarchy after his mother passes. Part of that was to be the sidelining of his brothers, but Andrew has helpfully made himself redundant already thanks to spectacularly bad decision making. But if this is true, and Andrew, Edward, and possibly Anne were to be downgraded, that sets a precedent. While Charles is king and William steps up to Prince of Wales, Harry might have a somewhat increased role, but that will have a shelf date.
Charles is already pushing 72. While his father is hanging on well, the male Windsors don't tend to run into their nineties. His will likely not be one of history's longer reigns. When William becomes king (assuming, of course, that the monarchy survives both the current queen and Charles), Harry and family become somewhat surplus to requirements given the 'streamlined monarchy', the precedent of Charles' siblings being downgraded, and William's three children who will all be either reaching or already of an age to be visible and useful. (As a reminder, they're currently 6, 4, and 1. Given another few years of ERII plus 5-10 of Charles, they'll be just fine carrying the flag and the name without Harry, Megan, and Archie.)
So this seems like it's just the first step in an inevitable transition, and a rather logical step - why raise their son and any other children they may have in the media crucible of being first tier royals, when they can step back now and try to raise him for his inevitable non-royal role? Why all the hysteria? Is this just the tabloids throwing a temper tantrum that Harry is still refusing to play by their rules?
