Why Meghan Markle and Prince Harry may not always have legal custody of royal baby
The law dates all the way back to the early 18th century
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.In October, Kensington Palace announced that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were expecting their first child in spring 2019.
While the couple and their relatives expressed their excitement over the news, there is a fascinating law in place that means that Prince Harry and Meghan may not always have full legal custody of their child.
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.
“George I did not get along with his son, the future George II,” Koenig tells The Independent.
“I believe it came about when the Prince of Wales [George II] did not want to have the godparent for his son that his father wanted - so George I got Parliament to come up with something.”
This means that when Charles, Prince of Wales becomes sovereign, he will have custody of his minor grandchildren.
According to Koenig, issues surrounding the law arose in 1994 when Diana, Princess of Wales separated from Prince Charles.
Diana expressed wishes to take their sons, Harry and William, to live with her in Australia, but couldn’t due to the regulations laid out by the custody 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.
While the law indicates that the Queen legally has custody of her minor grandchildren, Koenig doesn’t believe that she would ever feel the need to act upon it.
“I would doubt that the Queen would interfere. [It’s] more of a formality,” she says.
“I think the Queen has let her children raise their kids.”
Last year, it was revealed that a law that states that only sons can inherit hereditary peerages was being challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.
If the law were to be changed, this would mean that a daughter born to Prince Harry and Meghan would inherit a royal title, whereas she wouldn’t have been granted one before.
“Under the current system, any child of the Duke and Duchess won’t automatically have a royal title,” royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams explained to The Independent.
“The peerage, unlike the succession to the crown, favours males and if they have only daughters, the title of Sussex could die out as it did before."
This article has been amended to reflect that the sovereign has custody of their minor grandchildren, not great-grandchildren.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments