[James]

Originally Posted by jet

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...rift-vzgpppf68

I looked up the authors' names and they are American royal correspondents so I wouldn't expect it to be the most accurate thing ever.

Ultimately all of this with Harry and Meghan probably won't be that significant for the monarchy because Harry isn't a direct heir to the throne. If it was William it would be different.

I did go down a bit of a rabbit hole on Wiki there reading up on Prince Regents - the person that would become the temporary Monarch if, say, Prince George was due to be King but he was still too young - and the current rules say Prince Harry would be entitled to it (but he'd have to move back to the UK).

Although parliament could make a new law (happened in 1952) to give the position to someone like Kate.