"People surprised that William’s kids are ahead of Harry have clearly never watched the Lion King" 🦁 An amusing comment from the original video!

When you say, 'Americans think Harry is next to the throne,' it's worth reminding you, he's in the States. i.e. As far from the throne as you can get.

Archie and Lily are not automatically prince and princess as Charles has to grant it and that's not likely to happen.

Megan lied when she said in the Oprah interview that the Queen had stopped Harry and Meghan's son from being granted a Prince title. At that time the Queen was on the throne and was the Great Grandmother of Meghans children. Only grandchildren of the Monarch can be given the title of Prince. Now they can be granted this title as Charles is their Grandfather. But why should he do that?

Why aren’t some Americans angry they were lied to by Meghan about Archie being a prince was racism, when he wasn’t entitled yet until the queen died , it caused so much backlash .

The late queen's least favourite corgi has a better chance at the throne than Prince Harried, the only member of the Windsors who has a worse claim is Prince (my mate's name is Harvey) Andrew

Harry is now a Beatles song, "Nowhere Man".

Anne, Princess Royal, and her first husband, Mark Phillips, were offered titles on their marriage and for their children, they refused.

The Markles children presently are not Prince and Princess, he is getting a little ahead of himself

For information it was not mentioned that Princess Charlotte who is now 3rd in line, would previously not have been 3rd but 4th in line prior to 2013 when a new law was passed that changed the ruling to order of birth and not gender. Her great Aunt Princess Anne, The Princess Royal was the 2nd child of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, but because the ruling was not in place at this time her younger brothers Prince Andrew and Prince Edward come before her in the line of succession. Again it is also worth noting if Prince William and Princess Catherine have any further children or at the point in the future of George, Charlotte and Louis, as adults have children Prince Harry and his children as others within the Royal Family will move further away from the line of succession. Without wishing to cause any controversy, debate and just stating facts here, as the King is intending to 'streamline' the Royal family for the future it is unclear as to weather non working Royals will remain in the line of succession or have titles or use of. Such as HRH, Duke/Duchess etc. There is currently a parliamentary Bill going through it's stages, which if passed would give the Monarch powers to remove titles; to provide that such removals can be done by the Monarch on their own initiative or following a recommendation of a joint committee of Parliament; and for connected purposes.

They will not be prince or princess unless king Charles gives them the title

With eighteen bathrooms Harry is never too far from the throne.

Charles II b1630 d 1685 ascended throne 1660 after an interval that was essentially monarchless (the previous king was executed in 1649)... For many, the name Charles was considered almost as unlucky as Richard (the first one was childless, the second deposed, the third was accused of killing his nephews for the crown)

Please keep Meggy Meggy Moo Moo away from the Throne

I suggest you do a video on the previous King Charles'. Charles I was excuted in the 17th century leading to a brief period without a monarchy, although the Cromwells were monarchs in all but title. This only went on for a short time before Charles II was the first monarch during the restoration

Anyone can be removed from the line of succession except the actual monarch themselves... but it needs an act of parliament to do it. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy....

Charles II (29 May 1630 - 6 February 1685)[c] was King of Scotland from 1649 until 1651, and King of England, Scotland and Ireland from the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy until his death in 1685, as per Wikipedia.

recent update - Charlotte is to be Duchess of York rather than Edward getting the title. Think, at the moment, the UK would rather be a republic than have Harry as king; it will take some time before people forgive him for what he put the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh through when they were ill, with his and Meg's lies.

He was wrong when he said a reigning King couldn't hold a lesser title. The reigning monarch is always the Duke of Lancaster in England. This is because when Henry VII defeated Richard III in the Battle of Bosworth to become the first Tudor monarch, it was the final battle of the "Wars of the Roses" between the competing lines of Lancaster and York with Henry as Duke of Lancaster and Richard as Duke of York. The reigning monarch holds the property of the Duchy of Lancaster as a private income. One of the titles William inherited from Charles is Earl of Chester, which is held by the eldest son of the Duke of Lancaster. The Queen was Duke of Lancaster despite being a woman. it can be held by a woman to preserve its integrity as the personal holding of the reigning monarch. In the Crown dependancies of Jersey and Guernsey, the Channel Islands, the monarch is known as the Duke of Normandy since these are the last vestiges of the Duchy of Normandy, going back to William the Conqeror, held by the British Crown. In the Crown dependancy of the Isle of Man, the monarch is known as the Lord of Man.

Would the same people (Americans) not also ask why Prince Andrew is not second in line? Only, he was for the first 28 years of his life... While it is true, under the terms of the Letters Patent issued by King George V in 1917 that as grandchildren in the male line of a monarch, Archie and Lillibet Mountbatten-Windsor would normally be entitled to princely titles and the titular dignities of HRH; they do not currently enjoy these, because they would have to be approved by The King and he has no jurisdiction over the country in which they are normally domiciled. Indeed, Lilibet isn't even a British Citizen as such, though she does have a good claim, should she ever choose to pursue it. The King is also at liberty to change the 1917 rules if he sees fit (they have already been modified by Elizabeth II in 2013), as he appears to favour only "working royals" and those who were awarded them previously, to enjoy such titles and styles. All of the Royal Dukes have both Scottish and Irish subsidiary titles as well as the ducal styles by which they are best known. The Prince of Wales' full titles are therefore, "His Royal Highness The Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, The Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Cambridge*, Duke of Rothesay; Earl of Strathearn*, Baron Carrickfergus*." His wife's are the feminine form of the same: "Her Royal Highness The Princess William Arthur Louis, The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Cambridge*, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Strathearn*, Baroness Carrickfergus*" Note that, as she is a princess by marriage, she is not titled, Princess Catherine. In the event she outlives her husband before he becomes king or in the event that she divorces him, her title would become "Catherine, Princess of Wales" and like William's mother Diana, Princess of Wales, she will never officially be known as Princess Catherine - no matter what the media tells us! Also, the titles marked with an asterix* are those awarded to Prince William upon his marriage to Catherine, and assuming they follow previous aristocratic practices, these will now have passed (officially) to their eldest son and heir, Prince George - even though he does not currently use them. Alternatively they may have remerged with the Crown, which makes them available for future recreation should the Monarch of the day wish to do so. Likewise, there are HRH The Prince Henry Charles Albert David (Prince Harry), Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton+, Baron Kilkee+ and his wife, HRH Princess Henry Charles Albert David, The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton+, Baroness Kilkee+ (her Christian names also do not form part of any title as she is not entitled to any of these titles in her own right). Archie Mountbatten-Windsor could as things currently stand and, irrespective of whether he eventually becomes HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, use the title of Earl of Dumbarton, if his parents allowed him to. Then there is HRH The Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward, (Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh - though he has been asked to no longer use these titles, he still officially holds them); HRH Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary, Mrs. Edouardo Mopelli-Mozzi (formerly HRH Princess Beatrice of York), HRH Princess Eugenie Victoria Helena, Mrs Jack Brooksbank (formerley HRH Princess Eugenie of York); HRH The Prince Edward Antony Richard Louis, Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar, Viscount Severn^, HRH Princess Edward Antony Richard Louis, Countess of Wessex, Countess of Forfar, Viscountess Severn^ (again, her Christian name is not used as she derives these titles entirely from her husband and not in her own right). The Wessexes decided at the time of their marriage that with the agreement of Her Majesty (Queen Elizabeth II), any children of the marriage would not be styled as Royal Highness nor titled prince or princess but rather, as children of an earl - however, the Countess confirmed much later that both still had these and while it was very unlikely, they could choose to use them when they reach the age of 18. Interestingly, (HRH Prince) James Philip Theo Mountbatten-Windsor USES his father's subsidiary title, Viscount Severn. Lady Louise (Mountbatten-) Windsor has not as yet exercised her right to adopt her full title, which would be HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and Forfar... Notice that only the children of monarchs are styled HRH The Prince(ss). HRH Prince Richard Alexander Walter Gregers, Duke of Gloucester, was not always heir to the Gloucester title and indeed for the first 18 months of their marriage, he and his wide Birgitte used the titles of HRH Prince and Princess Richard of Gloucester. At the time of his birth in 1944, Prince Richard had a similar position to that of Lillibet Mountbatten-Windsor at the present time, his elder brother HRH Prince William of Gloucester expected to eventually inherit their father's title. However, after he was accidentally killed in a flying accident in 1972, Prince Richard became his father's heir and inherited the title upon the death of HRH The Prince Henry (3rd son of King George V and younger brother of both Edward VIII and George VI as well as uncle of Elizabeth II). Birgitte is officially known as HRH The Duchess of Gloucester. (An exception to the 1917 rules was made by Elizabeth II in respect of her widowed aunt-by-marriage, Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, who felt that as her late sister-in-law, Princess Marina, the widowed Duchess of Kent was styled as Princess, then so should she be; by honouring her request to become known as HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, which she held until her death in 2004. The difference between these two ladies however was that Princess Marina had been born a Princess of Greece!) Alexander, Earl of Ulster, has been known by his father's subsidiary title since birth - and his son (Prince Richard's grandson) Xan Windsor has been known by Richard's second subsidiary title of Baron Culloden, since his birth.) The same rules apply in the Kent family, with HRH Prince Edward Edmund Nicholas Paul Patrick having inherited his Duke of Kent title upon the death of his father, HRH The Prince George, in 1942 when he was aged just six. His mother retained her British title of HRH The Duchess of Kent until his marriage to Katherine in 1960, who then succeeded to that title and the Dowager Duchess then became HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent. Their eldest son George, has been known as Earl of St Andrews since his birth, later that year, while his eldest son has been known as Lord Downpatrick since his birth. Their younger son, Lord Nicholas Windsor and their daughter, Lady Helen Taylor, have the titles as younger children of a duke. Finally, The Duke of Kent's brother is styled HRH Prince Michael of Kent - as a younger son of a Royal Duke. His wife is known as HRH Princess Michael of Kent, demonstrating how the female name rule is properly applied in its simplest form. Also their 86-year old sister, HRH Princess Alexandra Olga Mary Marina Christabel, derives her title "The Honourable Lady Ogilvie" from her late husband, The Hon. Sir Angus Ogilvie. The Michaels' children are styled Lord and Lady, while their children and all of Alexandra's descendants have no titles derived from the Royal family.

Archie and lliybet aren't automatically prince and princess. This title has to be bestowed by king Charles. Archie was given the title of Earl of Dumbarton by the late Queen Elizabeth but Harriet and meegan didn't want there children to have titles but they soon wanted the children to be prince and princess ..I can't see king Charles doing that now .

and now you realise why Harry and Megan have behaved like 2 spoilt brats not getting their own way. Must have really pissed Megan off.

The focus on both Harry and Andrew over here in the UK has been on whether each should be stripped of their Dukedoms, their place in the line of succession is automatic. That doesn't mean it can't be changed by an act of parliament though. I think it's unlikely as Harry would need both William and all his children to be killed in some horrible tragedy, so it will be left as it is. What has happened is for Counsellors of State. These are the people able to deputise for the monarch in constitutional matters. They are usually the monarch's consort and next four in line over the age of 21. That would be The Queen, William, Harry Andrew and Beatrice. To deputise two of them must work together, as William and Charles did for the late Queen, but three of those are nor working royals, nor is the next in line Euginie. So an act has been passed appointing Edward and Anne to the Council, this was previously done for the Queen Mother in 1952. Once they each reach 21 Williams children will replace Beatrice, Andrew and Harry

One thing that has happened since then is that indeed Charles III has created his brother Edward Duke of Edinburgh, however, he created it as a life peerage, so it will not pass on to James. James will hold the courtesy title Earl of Wessex for now and pass it on to his oldest son. It seems to be Charles' wish to shrink those holding senior titles only to working royals. And (I am an American BTW) - here's the difference between Catherine and Charlotte as to their rank and titles. Before Charles created William Prince of Wales, Catherine's title was Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge afterward her title is Catherine, Princess of Wales (princess by courtesy title) as opposed to her daughter whose title is now Princess Charlotte of Wales.(princess in her own right like Anne and Beatrice and Eugenie and Margaret). With Meghan, her title is Meghan, Duchess of Sussex or if you get technical, Princess Henry but never ever Princess Meghan. There is no such person.

Charles the 1st was the King defeated and executed in the English Civil War. His son Charles the 2nd was restored to the throne after the death of Cromwell and his son about 11 years later. It was in the 1600s, so 17th Century. So it's been a while, lol.

The host of Useful Charts is in fact Canadian. Unfortunately royal succession isn't much taught in Canadian civics classes nowadays, and many of us find these matters just as confusing as Americans do.

Since you watch this i recommend you also watching the British line of succession that also made by useful charts

If Andrew is still in the line of succession (and he is) I don’t think anything Harry has done would bar him.

Charles II (29 May 1630 - 6 February 1685) was King of Scotland from 1649 until 1651 and King of England, Scotland and Ireland from the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy until his death in 1685. The Restoration of the Stuart monarchy in the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland took place in 1660 when King Charles II returned from exile in continental Europe. The preceding period of the Protectorate and the civil wars came to be known as the Interregnum (1649-1660).

H could only be KIng if Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis died/abdicated without leaving any children. He really isn't even the Spare since George was born, just another Duke/Prince, in terms of Spares both Charlotte and Louis are now technically 'Spares' as the Queen changed the rules of Succession allowing Charlotte to keep her place as second born child, unlike the Princess Royal who was passed over by her two younger brothers despite being the seconc child like Charlotte. There seems to be a lot of confusion in the USA about how the title of Monarch is passed down, if it went in order of age then it would be Charles, Andrew, Edward then back to William before Harry so he probably wouldn't ever succeed to the throne in any case.

Good to see someone who gets it. On Twitter today dealing with a Californian who thinks it's unfair that William's children are ahead of Harry.

Bear in mind that this is an "update" video, he goes through the line of succession in detail in the original video (mentioned in this one).

The Cunard ship the Queen Elizabeth was named after the (then) Queen Mother (ie. the mother of Queen Elizabeth II), not the Tudor Queen Elizabeth.

Thanks for watching and for your interest in our British History. If the line of succession went horizontally, and William died when he was very old, Harry would therefore be an old king when he was crowned, and who'd be the next king after that ? George or Archie ?

Charles II was King in the 15th century and on the throne during the Great Fire of London in 1666. The Queen Elizabeth liner is named after Queen Elizabeth II.

They have not been given titles as yet

All you really need to remember is the top guys, everyone else is essentially B squad

Bless, still if you listen to the twit he thinks he should be. Its quite simple ,unless the king/queen dies without ANY heirs its simple it goes eldest child of the king/Queen gets the throne,then its their childrenin order of birth,with each child of the heir pushing furtherdown the line any siblings of their brothers and sisters. Haz is now 5th, when the three royal children marry and have children he will go further and further down the line. Princess Anne was at one time 2nd inline ,she is now 15th, this is H,s future. Not CORRECT ,unless the King gives them the title they ARE NOT PRINCE OR PRINCESS. That is whats getting haz and the wife in such a panic

It has always been known that a ruling Queen is a Queen regnant and the wife of a King is a Queen consort, but "regnant" and "consort" have neve been part of the title. Because Queen Elizabeth ruled for so long, it was thought it would be confusing to call Camilla "Queen Camilla" so soon after Queen Elizabeth's death so "consort" was adopted as part of the title. This has never happened before. It was King William IV and Queen Adelaide, King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra, King George V and Queen Mary, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, so it should be King Charles III and Queen Camilla. After the coronation, when both the King and the Queen are crowned, I expect the "consort" bit to be dropped. The only time "consort" has been part of an official title is when Queen Victoria's husband Albert was given the title Prince Consort. This was necessary to raise his status above that of royal Dukes like the Duke of Cumberland, to make him second in status to the Queen. Prince Philip had renounced his royal titles from Greece and Denmark when marrying Princess Elizabeth but was eventually granted the title Prince of the United Kingdom which gave him the same status as the Prince Consort.

Charles II was King of Scotland from 1649 until 1651, and King of England, Scotland and Ireland from the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy until his death in 1685.

Charles II reigned in around 1650, when we restored the monarchy after the civil war and the beheading of Charles I. We were a republic for around 25 years. The titles are being held back at the Kings pleasure, Prince Edward's children were not given the prince and princess role. The eldest Lady Louise is just that and had the option to have a princess title when she was 18, James has one of Edward's subordinate titles, Viscount Severn. She has decided not. Also Peter and Zara Phillips who are the Princess Royal's children were not given titles at Anne's behest, as she wanted them to have a life without being wholly tied down to the monarchy.

I don’t think Harry is out. Because the next king after King Charles is Price William and then George, then Charlotte, then Louis. Now that is said, If George gets married and has children, then the line goes down the line of George.

An American I knew was ecstatic when Harry married Meghan, she told me wow, I can't wait to have an American Queen on the throne. She was incandescent with rage when I told her there was zero chance of that and a certainty Harry would be none other .... than Harry. After the way they've behaved I've got more of a shot at the throne.

HMS Queen Elizabeth is named after Elizabeth 1

It has been suggested that Charlotte might be given the title Duchess of Edinburgh which is what Queen Elizabeth was called called when she married Phillip. This would then stop Edward becoming Duke of Edinburgh.

Charles II was king from 1660-1685, Charles I (his father) was king from 1625-1649 and has the dubious distinction of being the only English king to be executed.

There’s a bit of confusion about being Queen, in the Uk there are usually three types of Queen. Queen Regnant who reigns as monarch like our late Queen Elizabeth, Queen Consort which is the wife of the King like Camilla and in the future Catherine and finally Dowager Queen the widow of the King

I recommend you to watch this playlist through and through: kzfaq.info/sun/PL_EAUfG-ZRkLFXPjOnf7G91-SZpsw1YWW Goes through the history of British Kings & Queens and also explains some other stuff, such as the history of the Prince of Wales (both title and person) or the Jacobite line of succession, including the matter of Charles III (the regnal name). Very informative, very enlightening. (Of course there are more playlists I put together on my channel/profile. Feel free to check them out.)

For info, the ship Queen Elizabeth was named after HM The Queen Mother (George VI's wife Elizabeth). When under construction the two ships were to be named Queen Elizabeth, after the Queen Mother, and Queen Victoria. Following pressure from the King (rumoured) the name of the second ship was changed to that of Queen Mary, after his mother. Now living in Long Beach Ca. (The ship, not his mother 😀). The QE 2 was the second ship to be named after the Queen Mother and NOT after Queen Elizabeth II, despite the public's misunderstanding.

Charles II was the son of Charles I in the late 16th and 17th centuries. Charles I was decapitated by the people of Britain. He was the last monarch to believe he ruled by divine right and had absolute power. Cutting his head off dealt with that and for 10 years after, Britain was a republic under Oliver Cromwell. But people liked having a monarch and we reinstated his son on condition he signed the English Bill of Rights in 1689. That was the blueprint for the American Bill of Rights BTW. From there after, we were a 'constitutional' monarchy. That means from that point, the monarch ruled by the grace of the people and was subject to English law, as it is today.

Charles II 1660-1685

The only 2 kids we never hear of in the news etc is Anne and Edward

I know you are one of the good guys and I hate to tell you this but Americans tend to over use the word kids;. It is acceptable when used in the right consent, though we prefer 'and use' the word children more frequently.' ... Please don't be offended it's just an observation. Take Care....

No, HMS Queen Elizabeth is named after Elizabeth II. This video is particularly interesting as you are the first reaction channel I have seen to review it. The commentator on the original video has a lugubrious manner of delivery, though; almost as if he was a first grade teacher trying to teach his pupils how to understand Ionesco!

Charles II was after the restoration, in 1660, he was a Stuart, his dad lost his head..

charles the second was the king who was brought back after cromwell and the civil war

Makes sense, as a Brit

Plez tell me why there camila not will be queen aftr king charles why its goes to his son?

The Archie and Lilibet thing will hopefully stop Meghan going on about the titles. I doubt it will, but you can only hope. And if they have any respect whatsoever they shouldn't use them. If the kids want to use them when they are old enough to fully understand what the title means, then fair enough. But if the parents use it for clout or branding then I think they should be stripped of the titles straight away. Then Meghan can have something that is actually true to moan about.

All the bestowed or inherited titles is what happens in a monarchy if it has been going for hundreds of years and has been one of the biggest empires in history.

And when or if Prince George has children, Prince Henry/Harry will drop down the line of succession

With every child of a Cambridge born he gets further away from the throne

blackadder is the real king

I honestly can't see the title of Duke of Edinburgh being a hereditary title for Prince Edward and his male heirs. I think it will return to the monarch at the the death of Edward.

Never going to happen. Is Harry really Charles's son and not the result of an affair Diana had?

Cool

Archie and Lilibet are not automatically prince/princess. The title has to be bestowed by the monarch, and neither the late Queen nor King Charles have bestowed it. Although Harry is a Prince, Meghan was never granted the title of Princess, and probably never will be. Archie and Lilibet may meet the requirements to be granted the Title of prince/princess, but until the Monarch bestows the title, then they are still just plain old Archie and Lilibet. Also the line of succession is not fixed. It can be changed by an act of Parliament, although Parliament is not allowed to debate it, let alone vote on a new line of succession, without the express permission of the monarch. This means that the line of succession is firmly in the hands of the monarch, especially since any new laws cannot be enforced without the signature of the monarch. The line of succession is rarely changed, but considering how Harry and Meghan have been conducting themselves, it wouldn't surprise me if the Sussexes not only lost their titles, but were also removed from the line of succession.

There is a third way of being removed from the line of succession apart from death and abdication: act of Parliament. British monarchs hold their titles not by divine right and not just through birth. The succession is stated in various acts of Parliament, one of the most important being the (English) Act of Settlement of 1701 which removed all catholics (scores of them) from the succession.

Harry Markel is not next to the throne he has left the UK and is no longer a Royal. you want him then by all means have him.

Harry is so far from the throne he's irrelevant. He will never hold the throne he's got as much chance of being a king as I as a commoner has of being a Queen thats how insignificant he truly is to the line of succession 😂😂😂 his children hold no titles as the king has to decree this and he hasn't done so and is probably not likely to give them titles and I don't blame the king one bit!!!

Princess lilibet is not 7 in line because she was not born in UK so she can't be In line she can't be crowned

Megan is not in line of succession.

If it's any consolation, most British people are confused by (or simply don't care about) these royal titles.

Not a chance in hell of ginge becoming king

Omg he's never been next in line by law the eldest child son's upto few years ago when the late queen changed that so Charles is king now then William then his oldest son George and so on with every birth in that line harry drops a place .

Charles 2 reigned from 1660 to 1685

No we don’t. We know the LOS.

Seeing the comments about previous King Charles's, the past 50 yrs I've see English and tourists standing at a well known tourist spot taking pics, being disrespectful etc, never have I seen anyone look at kings Charles execution location which is directly behind them. Even with a plaque there. 🤦

...and not a single one of them has done anything to deserve their title or position.

I think all Europeans knew these title things already. And since Catherine, the princess of Wales is pregnant. Harry is going back to 6th place as he was before.

First Charles had his head chopped off and the second was his son, who came back after the republic/commonwealth, when Cromwell died and they decided to restore the monarchy. Christmas was banned under Cromwell and was then restored under Charles II . He was King during the great fire of London and the Black Death. He had no kids so his brother, James, became King then got kicked out for being Catholic. so a dramatic period and i hope we live in less interesting times.

He hopes it is Trumps throne🎉😂😂

As harry is not a working royal and his children live in a America they are American. It's very unlikely that they will get titles..

Would be Andrew followed by edward? Nope you forgot Princess Anne as males no longer have precidence over females.

I'm not sure that Harry's children will have Prince and Princess titles conferred on them as they are not living in a commonwealth country and Harry has been very disparaging towards the Royal Family .

I think harry is now 7th in line..

Harry could never be King unless William and all his children died. Harrys children still have to be granted prince and princess titles yet

After Charles william will be King, his son George will follow him. Harry has no chance of becoming King unless all William's family die, in an accident or similar fashion.

Charles the 2nd was the king that dissolved parliament and in the end paid for it with his head under the leadership of Cromwell.

Charles II reigned 29 May 1630 - 6 February 1685

In order to be a Brittish prince or princess they have to be real!!!!!!

HMS Queen Elisabeth is name after HM Queen Elisabeth II. Prince Edward will become Duke of Edinburgh soon his daughter Louise has being made a Princess by King Charles III.

they need to be removed not improved anything else could cause problems, as for the children of harry the only thing likely to happen is more money grabbing with the titles, and moaning that they havent done better and its racist and biased.

Harry is the spare,

Archie and Lilibet should not be in the line of succession as they were not born of the body, they should be removed.

Wrong information. Prince Edward will not get the title Duke if Edinburgh. King Charles is about to slim down the monarchy and many people including his close relatives will be removed as working Royals. So Edward, Andrew and their children plus many others will lose their place from this list..Charles II was the eldest surviving child of Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland and Henrietta Maria of France. After Charles I's execution at Whitehall on 30 January 1649, at the climax of the English Civil War, the Parliament of Scotland proclaimed Charles II king on 5 February 1649. King Charles 1 1600 to 1649 beheaded King Charles 11 1630 to 1685

God help us if Harry became king his an American now

Harrys kids are not prince/ss they would need to be invested by King Charles and that is as likely as Twump becoming King of the USA