This isn’t true, you’ve got it mixed up with William’s daughter.William's children would not have been princes until last Thursday according to the old George V rules.
The Queen stepped in upon Prince George's birth to change the old rules and give him the title of prince.
The "row" was why she did this for one grandson and not the other.
You pinning it all on a Royal convention that the Queen tore up 5 years previously isn't a very strong argument.
Under this protocol, Prince George's siblings - Charlotte and Louis - would not have received the title either.
But in December 2012, the Queen also issued a letter patent which said that all of Prince William's children would be entitled to be princes or princesses and get the HRH title.
- On 22 October 1948, George VI issued letters patent allowing the children of his daughter Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, and son-in-law Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, to assume princely titles and the style Royal Highness;[11] they would not have been entitled to them ordinarily, as grandchildren in the female line, until their mother ascended the throne as Elizabeth II. Thus her son was styled HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh until his mother's accession. Otherwise the children would have been styled Earl of Merioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten, respectively.
- Elizabeth II issued letters patent, dated 22 February 1957, creating Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[12] Prince Philip had been born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, titles he renounced upon going through the naturalisation process, unaware that he was already a British subject by virtue of the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705.
George V’s declaration sets out: “The grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of this realm.”
As such, Archie will be entitled to the titles when Prince Charles accedes the throne.
George V’s declaration means that only Prince George, as a great-grandson of the monarch down the direct line of succession to the throne, was originally entitled to be a prince, as he is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
I don’t think she necessarily did. You are the one claiming that.Do you think implying Archie wasn’t given the title of Prince due to racism, rather than a Royal convention, was the right thing to do?
The Queen’s change in 2013 meant that the Prince of Wales’ children irrespective of sex, would be HRHNo, I haven't.
The Royal proclamation of 1917 entitled all children and grandchildren through the male line of the sovereign to be styled as Prince.
George was a great-grandchild and did not come under that.
The Queen changed the rules in 2013 so that all children of the eldest child of the Prince of Wales would also get the title.
@oldius claimed it to.I don’t think she necessarily did. You are the one claiming that.
The Queen’s change in 2013 meant that the Prince of Wales’ children irrespective of sex, would be HRH
First son, I believe.William’s son was always going to be a Prince, as he’s the heir to the throne.
No, I’m saying that you can‘t prove that she implied it. You can argue it, but cannot categorically claim she has done so.@oldius claimed it to.
If you don’t think she did that you’re lying to yourself.
When asked if Archie was snubbed due to race, her answer was that conversations about titles and his skin colour were in tandem.
It’s pretty obvious what she wanted people to know.