Every so often, a familiar claim resurfaces whenever Prince Harry and Meghan\u2019s children are mentioned: <\/span>Technically, don\u2019t all royal children belong to the monarch? <\/em>And the more sinister follow-up: <\/span>If Harry brought Archie and Lilibet to the UK, could the King prevent them from leaving?<\/em><\/p>\n A reader raised this concern in response to Tuesday\u2019s newsletter, in which we discussed the latest reporting on Harry\u2019s UK security arrangements. (Thank you, Steph!) I totally get why there\u2019s apprehension in the wake of reinstated protection could make family visits feasible again for Harry. It almost feels too good to be true, doesn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n It\u2019s an understandable question: <\/span>now that Harry might have a path to reintroduce his family to Britain, might there be another danger waiting around the corner? Might he be separated from the children he gave up everything to protect?<\/em> This is an assumption that\u2019s been circulating in royal discourse for years\u2026but it\u2019s also built on a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and law.<\/span><\/p>\n Share The Fascinator<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Because the short answer is no (but you\u2019re not here for the short answer, are you?) The longer answer explains <\/span>a lot<\/em> about why royal mythmaking is so sticky in the public consciousness, and why the Sussexes, in particular, always seem to attract it.<\/span><\/p>\n This rumor traces back to a historical royal concept that is wildly misapplied today: <\/span>the royal prerogative over minors<\/strong>. Sometimes described as the monarch being the \u201cguardian\u201d of royal grandchildren, this power once saw the Crown exercise sweeping authority over heirs, particularly those in the direct line of succession. <\/span><\/p>\n <\/a> But we\u2019re talking medieval and early modern England here; the custody, education, marriages, and even residence of royal children were dictated by the sovereign as a method of retaining political (and physical) power. Heirs were political assets, and control over them meant control over dynastic stability.<\/p>\n However, that authority has not existed (in either practical\u00a0<\/strong>or<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0legal terms) for centuries.<\/strong><\/p>\n The claim that the monarch can seize or control royal grandchildren does not arise from thin air. But it <\/span>does <\/em>come from a very specific, very old family feud that has been repeatedly flattened, misquoted, and repurposed far beyond its original context.<\/span><\/p>\n In 1717, King George I became embroiled in a <\/span>bitter dispute with his son<\/a>, the future George II, over the Prince of Wales’s upbringing of his children. The conflict escalated to the courts, where judges ruled (by a narrow majority) that the king\u2019s right of supervision extended to his grandchildren, even during their father\u2019s lifetime.<\/span><\/p>\n Read more about this era\u2019s eerie parallels with the reign of King Charles III:<\/strong><\/p>\n
![\"Rival](\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!77VR!,w_424,h_212,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fbd974c7f-9a8f-403c-8dcf-7063fb7e4eda_1200x1200.jpeg)
<\/picture><\/a><\/div>\n