Friends, you may have noticed I’ve been extremely quiet during the Megxit scandal. I could lie to you and say it’s because I’ve been trying to confirm certain aspects of the deal (“Will the house ghosts move to North America with them?”) with my sources (My mechanic Brett and my crystal dealer Sharon) but that would be a lie. The truth is, I recently discovered Below Deck, a Bravo show that wasn’t in my current rotation, and as a result, I’ve been bingeing it because it is exactly my kind of show. Hopefully, you’ve been OK during this time with other coverage, but too much Bravo makes you feel like your body is rotting from the inside out, so I’m here today to discuss something very important: Who gets custody of Archie?
Now, you may be scoffing, rolling your eyes at this screen because of course it would be Meghan Markle and her husband, yes? Well, not so fast hotshot. I’m about to take you on a journey of self-discovery and barring that, tell you about a dumb, weird rule where the sovereign monarch has more authority over their grandchildren (and great-grandchildren) than you’d expect.
See, technically speaking, The Queen has control over what happens to her grandchildren (and great-grandchildren.) Don’t believe me? I wouldn’t either, I may or may not be day-drunk right now. I’ll let a more authoritative source, like The Independent, explain it to you:
More than three centuries ago, a law was enacted that means the sovereign has full legal custody of their minor grandchildren, royal expert Marlene Koenig explains.The law, called “The Grand Opinion for the Prerogative Concerning the Royal Family,” was introduced by King George I in 1717.
Oh, yikes, if you’re thinking this was because two dudes, who happened to be father and son didn’t get along, and because one was a man-baby who was also King so he got to make dumb laws, you’d be doubly correct.
Anyway, here’s more details on the whole, weird, super archaic law:
An annual register published in 1772 goes into greater detail explaining the details of the regal ruling.“They said that the opinion of 10 judges, in the year 1717, was a confirmation of the legality of this prerogative, which admitted the King’s right to the care of the marriage and education of the children of the royal family; and that the late opinion acknowledges, that the King had the care of the royal children and grandchildren, and the presumptive heir to the crown…”, the register outlines.Loading...
That settles it, right? The Queen has custody of Archie! Not so fast. People.com, the unofficial official rag of the Royals in the US wants you to know that of course the Queen doesn’t have custody over her grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Don’t be ridiculous!
Per the narcs, sorry, People.com:
“This isn’t an Act of Parliament, but a royal prerogative established in the early 18th century, so it is not legally binding,” Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty, tells PEOPLE.“It is nothing more than a royal prerogative and is archaic and would have little bearing today,” he continues. “The circumstances would have to be pretty extreme for the Queen to invoke it on behalf of her great-grandchildren.
So, that People.com article was published in August 2018, more than a year before Megxit would shock anyone who wasn’t paying attention to the fact the Sussexes were consistently treated like garbage in the press, and the rest of Harry’s family hid behind that coverage to cover their own sins. What does this mean for Archie’s custody now?
Well, look, I’m only really familiar with bird law, but in my estimation, Meghan is smart as hell leaving Archie back in Canada when the shit hit the fan with Megxit. It would be unprecedented for the Queen to invoke a weird and old law to use the Sussexes own child as a bargaining chip, but look—no one got to be the sovereign by playing nice, especially not the English. (One of their kings had his own nephews executed, because they were a threat to his claim to the throne, y’all. Did I mention they were only children?)
So while it would probably be an incredibly polarizing move by the Queen that only the most virulently racist among us would applaud (so, you know, Katie Hopkins and her hobgoblins) it could still be a card she could hypothetically play. Even the People.com Royal specialist admitted as much in the article.
So, yes, in theory, the Queen could claim Archie as her own, and technically speaking, she is the sovereign of Canada, where Archie is rumored to be with his mom. However, I am confident in saying that it will be cold day in hell that the Canadian government would turn over Archie to the Queen, even if she decided to play that card because for them to do that would be bananas.
…but like I said. I’m only a bird law person.