Yes, and only a few weeks after having hip replacement surgery! He even scooted across the car seat and got out of the car on the same side as his wife, with no assistance. He didn’t even seem to grip the car door.
@conmama The “of Wales” is not a title, but a territorial designation that comes from their father. Now that they have their own titles, the new ones supersede. Similarly, women who have a territorial designation lose that when they marry. So, at least according to tradition, and barring any granting of titles between now and then, Eugenie, who is currently HRH Princess Eugenie of York, will become HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank upon her marriage later this year.
Correct, unless the Queen issues a letters patent in advance of their births, as she did in advance of Charlotte’s. Had she not, she would have been simply Lady Charlotte Windsor.
Correct.
At that time, they would be grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, so my interpretation is they would automatically become HRH at that time. Since it’s never happened before, I think Victoria never thought through all the potential scenarios when she issues letters patents in 1864 and 1898 defining who was entitled to HRH. For that reason,I believe that if Meghan is pregnant while Elizabeth is on the throne, the Queen will clarify what the title/style would be for Meghan/Harry’s children. But yes, Charles could then change again if/when he becomes King.
No. 
I think it would have been OK if Charlotte was Lady Charlotte instead of Princess Charlotte during the Queen’s lifetime. At least we would have known who we were talking about.
Where the lesser titles confuse me is with boys. You never seem to know what their first names are. They’re always referred to with titles like “Viscount Something.” I know that Prince Edward’s daughter is called Louise, because she’s Lady Louise Windsor, but I have no clue about her brother’s first name.
I’m glad the Queen tweaked the rules so that people could refer to George and Louis by their names from the beginning of their lives, rather than having to wait for Charles to become King.
James
Wow, I know more than I ever needed to know or thought I wanted to know but it is insanely fascinating.
Meghan will begin royal boot camp. Now that to me would be fun, I’d love to hear all the rules.
Checked out the „best royal wedding guest outfits“ on telegraph.co.uk.
Does it bother anyone else that a fashion journalist would still refer to a pale pink dress as „blush“ and pale beige shoes as „nude“, as if those were the default skin tones of anybody that mattered? Particularly if the people wearing these tones were Serena Williams and Oprah Winfrey?
I thought these colour designations were on the way out by now, and if they weren’t, they should be…
I know next to nothing about fashion . But, a cursory look at websites , including more upscale ones, sees dresses described as blush, shoes described as nude .
Were you invited to the Royal Wedding ?
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/22/girl-bursts-into-tears-because-she-wasnt-invited-to-the-royal-wedding/
I thought blush was a pink with a slight peach tone. And that nude refers to neutral.
You know, color precision is pretty important to some fashion folks.
Neutral for who?
Some of those descriptions say neutral for the shoe color, but why not say beige or pale beige. Latte? Ecru?
And for blush you could substitute pale pink, or pale mauve if there are beige tones. Someone described Camilla’s outfit as ice pink.
I don’t know what teacher told their kindergarten class that “everyone” was going to the royal wedding, but I bet she wishes she chose her words more carefully after The Federalist video (post #848) of the little girl bursting into tears surfaced. I thought her mom handled that really well. I don’t know if posting it on social media was the best idea, but the little girl is adorable.
@skieurope , thank you so much for your detailed response and the time to type it all out!
Crayola had the sensitivity to change the crayon color “flesh” to “peach” in the 1960s after people pointed out that lots of people’s flesh is not, in fact, this color.
The fashion world needs to catch up.
Neutral as in neutral, lol. It’s just a term. Call the shoes what you wish.
I don’t recall any wedding clothing described as flesh colored.
It’s not a point I’d argue.
I thought colors in the brown, black and white family are generally considered “neutrals” since they go with many other colors. Does it refer to skin color?
Fashion world is not the ones that need to catch up. In fashion world, “Nude” does not describe a specific color. It is a term indicating that the shoe blends with one’s skin. Check out Louboutin’s collection called the Nudes, for example. I use two nude shoe colors - my winter nude is lighter shade of beige than my summer nude. 
But Pantone4 (the color id bible) still seems to show nude as pinky, for white people. I get the concerns.
(My mother wouldn;t have liked you wearing light beige shoes after labor day, BB.)
In order not to get the thread shut down, I’d suggest that the question of what color is neutral or how Crayola names its crayons be discussed on its own thread.