Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Liz; Morgana
According to reports, the royal family operates with a strange custody agreement when its couples have their children, which states that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has full legal custody over the young royals.

“This goes back to King George I [who ruled in the early 1700s], and the law’s never been changed. He did it because he had a very poor relationship with his son, the future King George II, so they passed this law that meant the King was the guardian of his grandchildren.”

This could get interesting...

48 posted on 07/20/2023 8:40:05 AM PDT by GOPJ (Budweiser, Maybelline etc pay for ads the LGBQ 'community' hijacks. for their own agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: GOPJ

Wow.......Harry finally got wise to her.


77 posted on 07/20/2023 9:11:38 AM PDT by Liz (Vox Populi, Vox Dei (voice of the people is the voice of God))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: GOPJ; Liz; Morgana

They currently reside in the US. British law would be ignored by a US Family Court judge.

Harry’s only hope would be to grab the kids, hop on a British-flagged airliner, arrive in UK, and throw himself upon the mercy of his father.

Otherwise the Royal Family may see Megan decide to demand full custody, and then decide that the kids are really transgender...


107 posted on 07/20/2023 10:08:26 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (We live in a time where intelligent people are being silenced so stupid people won’t be offended)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

To: GOPJ; Dr. Sivana; Oberon; FatherofFive; SE Mom; mware; Allegra; j.havenfarm; Sacajaweau; EEGator; ..
According to reports, the royal family operates with a strange custody agreement when its couples have their children, which states that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has full legal custody over the young royals.

This is poor reporting. The custody is not with the person, but with the person who wears the Crown. The British Sovereign has legal custody of all of his or her minor grandchildren, to ensure the line of succession. That is now King Charles.

Neither Charles nor Queen Elizabeth could assert custody of Harry's children when they were born until Elizabeth died. Elizabeth had the royal prerogative over her grandchildren (William and Harry from Charles, Peter and Zara from Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie from Andrew, and Louise and James from Edward), who were all grown by the time Harry's kids were born; but the order did not extend to her great-grandchildren, (she had I think nine, including Archie and Lilibet from Harry).

Charles supposedly has legal custody now that he is crowned. The question is whether he is strong enough to use whatever leverage is necessary to assert physical custody of the children, which cannot happen without a fight, or some rather dramatic subterfuge. Philip would have urged the Sovereign to do what needed to be done. Elizabeth was too indulgent, and Charles seems to be, as well.

As for California law versus the British Crown, it would not be hard for UK to turn this into an international relations negotiation between Ambassadors. It would be ironic justice if any custody suit takes place when Trump is president again! Meghi's worst nightmare! I think Trump's parting words to Harry when he saw him last were, "Good luck. You're going to need it."

175 posted on 07/20/2023 4:33:40 PM PDT by Albion Wilde (“There is no good government at all & none possible.”--Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson